LIBRARY  OF  PRINCHOU 


SUN  2  4  2  jij4 

THEOLOGICAL  SEMIKARY 


!f 


.\* 


^ 


THE 


OCT  1 1  19 


v'^f 


W^(^M  ^^^ 


£Clnr 


PROPHECIES  OF  ISAIAH. 


TRANSLATED   AND    EXPLAINED. 


JOSEPH    ADDISON    ALEXANDER,   D.  D, 

Late  Professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton,  New  Jersey. 


A   NEW   AND   KEVISED    EDITION. 


NEW  YORK: 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER    &    CO.,    654    BROADWAY. 

1870. 


EDITOR'S  PREFACE. 


Db  Joseph  Addison  Alexander,  the  able  and  learned  author  of  this  Com- 
mentary, the  great  work  of  his  life,  died  at  Princeton,  New  Jersey,  on  the 
20th  January  1860,  having  been  born  at  Philadelphia  in  April  1809.  The 
unexpected  death  of  one  so  eminent  and  useful,  produced  a  profound  sen- 
sation throughout  the  American  States.  "  Devout  men  carried  him  to  his 
burial,  and  made  great  lamentation  over  him."  As  the  son  of  an  accom- 
plished father,  the  Rev.  Dr  Archibald  Alexander,  Joseph  Addison  enjoyed 
the  best  of  intellectual  and  spiritual  training.  His  scholarship  was  pre- 
cociously developed,  for,  at  fourteen  years  of  age,  he  had  read  through  the 
Koran  in  the  original  Arabic.  The  other  oriental  tongues  he  mastered  at  a 
very  early  period  ;  and  he  also  acquired,  in  the  course  of  his  Academic 
curriculum,  a  profound  acquaintance  with  the  classical  languages,  and  an 
intimate  familiarity  with  most  of  the  modern  tongues  of  Europe.  On  the 
very  day  before  his  death,  he  enjoyed  his  usual  portion  of  Scripture  in  the 
six  languages  in  which  it  had  been  his  daily  habit  to  read  it.  He  was,  in 
1835,  chosen  by  the  General  Assembly  Associate  Professor  of  Oriental  and 
Biblical  Literature  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton,  and  he  had 
already  been,  for  some  years,  Assistant  Professor  of  Ancient  Languages 
in  the  College  of  New  Jersey.  In  1851,  he  was  transferred  to  the  chair  of 
Biblical  and  Ecclesiastical  History,  and  in  1859  his  Professorate  received 
the  title  of  the  chair  of  Hellenistic  and  New  Testament  literature.  "We 
need  not  say  that  Dr  Alexander  nobly  and  successfully  discharged  the  duties 
of  his  office — infecting  the  students  with  his  own  enthusiasm,  and  setting 
before  them,  in  his  prelections,  a  model  of  clear  and  manly  statement,  and 
of  industrious  and  learned  research.  He  was  a  preacher,  too,  of  no  com- 
mon stamp,  and  his  sermons  pubhshed  since  his  death  give  proof  of  his 
clearness,  eloquence,  and  power,  in  applying  as  well  as  in  expounding 
evangelical  truth.  His  expositions  of  the  Psalms,  Mark,  Acts,  and  a  portion 
of  Matthew  (this  last  labour  being  interrupted  by  his  death),  are  specimens 
of  lucid,  sound,  and  popular  commentary.  His  colleague  Dr  Hodge,  in  an 
address  to  the  General  Assembly  in  1860,  justly  said  of  him,  "  I  regard  Dr 
Joseph  Addison  Alexander  as  incomparably  the  greatest  man  I  ever  knew, 
— as  incomparably  the  greatest  man  our  church  has  ever  produced."  But 
his  crowning  labour,  his  imperishable  monument,  is  his  Commentary  on 


vi  EDITORS  PREFACE. 

Isaiah.  He  had  made  some  progress  in  revisal  for  a  second  edition,  and 
some  scores  of  corrections  and  improvements  made  by  himself  on  his  own 
copy  have  been  collected  by  a  scholarly  friend  and  transmitted  to  us. 
These  have  been  incorporated  in  this  present  edition,  which  may  there- 
fore be  said  to  contain  its  eminent  author's  latest  emendations. 

The  republication  of  this  Commentary  in  the  present  form  will,  it  is 
hoped,  prove  an  acceptable  present  to  the  Biblical  students  of  this  country, 
for  it  occupies  an  independent  place  among  the  numerous  expositions  of  the 
evangelical  Prophet,  which  have  appeared  in  earlier  or  more  recent  times 
in  Holland,  Germany,  England,  and  America.  The  two  ponderous  folios 
of  Vitringa  bear  upon  them  the  evidence  of  severe  study,  prodigious  in- 
dustry, vast  learning,  and  unflinching  orthodoxy.  Yet  they  are  essentially 
Dutch  in  their  structure — solid,  cumbrous,  and  prolix  ;  stifl'  in  their  ar- 
rangement, tedious  in  their  details,  and  copious  to  satiety  in  the  miscellane- 
ous references  and  disquisitions  with  which  they  are  loaded.  The  views 
advanced  in  them  are  more  bulky  than  tasteful,  the  arguments  ofl'ered  more 
numerous  than  strong,  and  while  at  times  there  is  a  spirited  appreciation 
of  a  splendid  symbol  or  a  glowing  paralleUsm,  the  author  was  too  phlegmatic 
to  be  thrilled  from  sympathy  with  the  prince  of  Hebrew  bards ;  too  much 
engaged  in  polemical  disquisitions  and  recondite  senses  to  waste  time  in 
expressing  his  slow  and  unwieldy  emotions.  The  Commentary  of  Gesenius 
occupies  a  place  of  no  mean  dignity.  Its  faithful  adherence  to  the  Maso- 
retic  text,  its  sound  grammatical  notations,  its  clear  and  shrewd  analysis  of 
syntactic  difficulties,  its  happy  surmises  in  cases  of  acknowledged  dubiety, 
and  its  fulness  of  archaeological  lore,  have  conferred  upon  it  a  European 
celebrity.  But  these  literary  virtues  are  more  than  counterbalanced  by  its 
obtrusive  neology,  its  occasional  levity,  its  low  and  perverted  notions  of  the 
theocracy,  its  melancholy  denial  of  prophetic  inspiration  and  foresight,  and 
its  virulent  hostility  to  the  leading  doctrine  of  a  Messiah.  The  merits  of 
this  masterly  Treatise  are  also  lessened  by  its  restless  employment  of  the 
"  higher  criticism,"  for  the  purpose  of  impugning  the  integrity  of  Isaiah, 
and  of  so  dismembering  the  book  of  his  oracles,  that  the  larger  portion  of 
them  are  branded  as  the  anonymous  productions  of  a  later  age,  which  sought 
in  vain  to  disguise  its  intellectual  poverty  by  a  patriotic  imitation  of  the 
fresher  writings  of  an  earlier  period.  It  would  be  a  w^oful  day  for  Christen- 
dom, if  the  question,  as  to  what  are  and  what  are  not  the  genuine  remains 
of  the  son  of  Amoz,  were  to  be  left  for  final  decision  to  the  morbid  subjec- 
tivity and  capricious  mania  of  German  unbelief. 

The  refined  taste  and  classical  acquirements  of  Bishop  Lowth  are  seen  in 
the  many  beautiful  references  and  apposite  illustrations  which  adorn  to  pro- 
fusion his  popular  work.  But  the  reckless  treatment  which  he  applied  to 
the  text  in  his  repeated  and  superfluous  alterations  and  suggestions  with- 
out evidence  or  necessity,  mars  the  utility  of  the  scanty  exegesis  which  is 
contained  in  his  Commentar}\  The  volume  of  the  late  Dr  Henderson  of 
Highbury  is  of  great  merit  and  ripe  scholarship,  and  commends  itself  to  us 
as  the  result  of  skilful  and  sanctified  erudition.     It  often  suggests  the  way 


EDITOR'S  PREFACE.  vii 

to  discover  the  truth,  if  in  any  case  it  fail  to  reveal  it.  Yet,  with  all  its 
perspicuity,  its  brevity  or  curtness  is  a  marked  defect.  On  many  points, 
in  connection  with  which  acute  and  sagacious  decisions  are  given,  we 
long  for  a  fuller  statement  of  those  philological  principles  by  which  the 
critic  has  been  guided,  and  a  more  minute  enumeration  of  those  objec- 
tions to  his  own  views  which  are  often  dismissed  with  a  simple  allusion  to 
their  existence,  or  are  set  aside  with  the  bare  mention  of  their  age,  author- 
ship, and  valueless  character.  Mr  Barnes  of  Philadelphia  has  compiled 
three  excellent  volumes  of  Notes  on  Isaiah  with  no  little  dexterity  and  success. 
But  these  annotations,  from  their  very  nature,  do  not  come  into  competition 
with  the  Commentary  of  Professor  Alexander.  We  have  classed  together 
only  the  more  prominent  Works  on  Isaiah  for  the  sake  of  a  brief  compari- 
son, and  we  deem  it  unnecessary  to  place  on  such  a  list  the  productions 
of  Hitzig  or  Hendewerk,  Knobel  or  Ewald,  Drechsler  or  Umbreit,  Jenour 
or  Stock,  Noyes  or  Macculloch. 

We  do  not,  however,  mean  to  make  this  republished  Exposition  the 
theme  of  unqualified  or  indiscriminate  eulogy.  No  one,  indeed,  saw  its 
defects  more  readily  than  did  its  author  himself,  and  no  one  could  be  more 
prompt  to  acknowledge  or  correct  them,  for  with  all  his  gifts  and  greatness  he 
had  the  simplicity  and  candour  of  a  child.  ,  Yet  we  reckon  it  among  the  best 
Commentaries  on  Isaiah  of  any  age  or  in  any  language.  It  embodies  in 
it  the  fruits  of  many  years  of  continuous  toil  and  research,  and  its  size  gives 
it  the  advantage  of  a  gratifying  fulness.  Professor  Alexander  possessed 
consummate  scholarship.  He  discovers  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
nicer  peculiarities  of  Hebrew  philology,  in  its  tenses,  particles,  and  more 
delicate  combinations ;  and  at  the  same  time  possesses  no  little  relish  for 
the  assthetic  element — the  buds  and  blossoms  of  oriental  poetry.  His 
unfailing  stores  of  auxiliary  erudition  are  ever  at  disciplined  command,  and 
are  applied  with  eminent  judgment.  The  value  of  his  publication  is  also 
enhanced  by  the  excellent  synoptical  accounts  of  the  labours  and  opinions 
of  former  and  contemporary  authors,  which  are  to  be  found  under  almost 
every  verse.  The  Work  is  pervaded  also  by  a  sound  exegetical  spirit ;  the 
spirit  of  one  who  had  been  "baptized  into  Christ."  For  his  daily  study 
of  the  Bible  was  never  to  him  a  mere  professional  occupation. 

Interesting  views  of  the  nature  of  prophecy  in  itself,  and  in  its  relations 
as  well  to  the  Jewish  Commonwealth  as  to  the  Church  of  the  Redeemer, 
abound  in  the  following  pages.  The  reveries  of  Teutonic  criticism  are 
imsparingly  held  up  to  scorn,  and  the  "  old  paths"  are  proved  to  be  still 
the  safest  and  best.  The  Exposition  is  free  from  extraneous  matter.  It 
has  no  digressions ;  no  learned  lumber  obstructs  the  reader's  way  with  its 
conceited  and  multifarious  curiosities.  The  principles  which  the  author 
has  laid  down  for  his  own  guidance  in  the  extreme  literalness  of  his  ver- 
sion, are  sometimes  followed,  however,  with  such  rigidness  and  system  as 
might  afford  facetious  remarkings  to  any  satirical  reviewer.  This  pecu- 
liarity, however,  some  may  consider  no  blemish,  but  may  rather  hail  it  as 
an  improvement.     In  one  word,  this  Transatlantic  Commentary  is  cautious 


viii  EBITOR'S  PREFACE. 

and  reverent  in  its  textual  criticism, — in  its  habitual  demeanour  towards 
those  "  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teachcth."  It  is  no  less  expert,  ac- 
curate, and  felicitous  in  its  philology,  basing  it  on  the  acknowledged  laws 
of  mind  and  principles  of  language.  Its  hermeneutical  canons  are  always 
sagacious  and  in  general  correct,  while  the  exegesis  is  distinguished  by 
its  hai-mony  and  vigour,  and  relieved  by  its  exalted  and  luminous  concep- 
tions. Nevertheless  we  are  not  so  sanguine  as  to  anticipate  for  the  author 
whom  we  have  been  honoured  to  introduce,  that  his  readers  will  assent 
to  all  his  hypotheses,  or  will  be  converted  to  his  marked  and  favourite 
interpretations  of  those  paragraphs  and  sections,  the  precise  meaning  and 
fulfilment  of  which  are  in  the  present  day  topics  of  keen  and  protracted 
controversy. 

This  edition  has  been  printed  with  great  care.  The  editor  has  read  all 
the  sheets  with  attention  as  they  passed  through  the  press,  and  has  corrected 
very  many  errors,  both  in  the  Hebrew  and  English  text  of  the  American 
original.  Alexander's  Isaiah  has  already  taken  its  own  place  in  the  front 
rank  of  biblical  works  ;  and  our  belief  is  that  a  "  Contribution  "  so  dis- 
tinguished by  its  learning  and  piety  will  be  cordially  welcomed  and  speedily 
naturalised  among  us.  May  the  inspired  classics  always  engage  that 
admiration  which  they  so  justly  merit  for  their  originality  and  truthfulness, 
their  simplicity  and  pathos,  their  magnificent  imagery  and  varied  music. 
But,  above  all,  may  they  attract  the  living  faith  of  every  admirer  to  those 
blessed  truths  and  promises  which  they  have  been  so  wisely  and  graciously 
employed  to  reveal  to  a  fallen  and  dying  world,  for  the  old  prophetic  harp 
was  tuned  to  the  utterance  of  the  noblest  thoughts  and  mysteries,  the 
majesty,  unity,  and  spirituality  of  Jehovah,  the  holiness  of  his  law,  the  in- 
finitude of  his  love,  and  the  might,  triumphs,  and  wonders  of  that  covenant 
by  which  our  apostate  race  is  to  be  reclaimed  and  glorified. 

JOHN  EADIE. 
Glasgow,  13  Lansdowne  Ceescent, 
January  1865. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  EARLIER  PROPHECIES. 


To  prevent  misapprehension,  and  facilitate  the  use  of  the  following  work, 
some  explanation  may  be  needed  with  respect  to  its  design  and  execution. 
The  specific  end  at  which  it  aims  is  that  of  making  the  results  of  philo- 
logical and  critical  research  available  for  purposes  of  practical  utility.  In 
attempting  to  accomplish  this  important  pvirpose,  it  was  soon  found  indis- 
pensable to  fix  upon  some  definite  portion  of  the  reading  public,  whose 
capacities,  acquirements,  and  wants  might  be  consulted  in  determining  the 
form  and  method  of  the  exposition.  Some  learned  and  ingenious  works  in 
this  department  have  been  rendered  to  a  great  extent  practically  useless,  by 
the  want  of  a  determinate  fitness  for  any  considerable  class  of  readers,  being 
at  once  too  pedantic  for  the  ignorant,  and  too  elementary  for  the  instructed. 
In  the  present  case  there  seemed  to  be  some  latitude  of  choice,  and  yet  but 
one  course  on  the  whole  advisable.  Works  exclusively  adapted  to  the  use 
of  profound  orientalists  and  bibhcal  scholars  are  almost  prohibited  among 
ourselves  at  present,  by  the  paucity  of  competent  writers  and  congenial 
readers.  Works  designed  for  the  immediate  use  of  the  unlearned  must  of 
necessity  be  superficial  and  imperfect,  and  are  proved  by  experience  to  be 
not  the  most  efiective  means  of  influencing  even  those  for  whom  they  are 
expressly  written.  The  obscurer  parts  of  Scripture,  or  at  least  of  the  Old 
Testament,  can  be  most  effectually  brought  to  bear  upon  the  popular  mind 
by  employing  the  intermediate  agency  of  an  intelligent  and  educated 
ministry.  The  people  may  be  best  taught  in  such  cases  through  their 
teachers,  by  furnishing  a  solid  scientific  basis  for  their  popular  instructions. 
Under  the  influence  of  these  considerations  an  attempt  has  here  been  made 
to  concentrate  and  economise  the  labours  of  the  ministry  in  this  field,  by 
affording  them  a  partial  succedaneum  for  many  costly  books,  and  enabling 
them  to  profit  by  the  latest  philological  improvements  and  discoveries, 
without  the  inconveniences  and  even  dangers  which  attend  a  direct  resort 
to  the  original  authorities. 

What  has  now  been  said  will  explain  a  feature  of  the  plan,  which  might 
at  first  sight  seem  to  be  at  variance  with  the  ultimate  design  of  the  whole 
work,  to  wit,  the  exclusion  of  the  practical  element,  or  rather  of  its  formal 
exhibition  in  the  shape  of  homiletical  and  doctrinal  reflections.     A  work 


X  PREFACE. 

upon  Isaiah  so  constructed  as  to  constitute  a  series  of  lectures  or  expository 
sermons,  instead  of  doing  for  the  clergy  what  they  need  and  what  they  wish, 
would  be  attempting  to  do  for  them  that  which  they  can  do  far  better  for 
themselves,  by  presenting  one  of  the  many  forms  in  which  the  substance 
of  the  book  may  be  employed  for  the  instruction  and  improvement  of  their 
people.  The  effect  of  this  consideration  is  enhanced  by  an  impression, 
which  the  author's  recent  labours  have  distinctly  made  upon  his  mind, 
that  much  of  the  fanciful  and  allegorical  interpretation  heretofore  current 
has  arisen  from  a  failure  to  discriminate  sufficiently  between  the  province  of 
the  critical  interpreter,  and  that  of  the  expositoiy  lecturer  or  preacher ;  the 
eft'ect  of  which  has  been  to  foist  into  the  Scriptures,  as  a  part  of  their 
original  and  proper  sense,  a  host  of  applications  and  accommodations,  which 
have  no  right  there,  however  admissible  and  even  useful  in  their  proper 
place.  Let  the  professional  interpreter  content  himself  with  furnishing 
the  raw  material  in  a  sound  and  merchantable  state,  without  attempting  to 
prescribe  the  texture,  colour,  shape,  or  quantity  of  the  indefinitely  varied 
fabrics  into  which  it  is  the  business  of  the  preacher  to  transform  it.  From 
these  considerations  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  omission  now  in  question 
has  arisen,  not  merely  from  a  want  of  room,  and  not  at  all  from  any  dis- 
regard to  practical  utilitj',  but  on  the  contrary,  from  a  desire  to  promote  it 
in  the  most  effectual  manner. 

Another  point,  which  may  be  here  explained,  is  the  relation  of  the  fol- 
lowing commentary  to  the  authorised  English  Version  of  Isaiah.  It  was 
at  first  proposed  to  make  the  latter  the  immediate  basis  of  the  exposition, 
simply  calling  in  the  aid  of  the  original  to  rectify  the  errors,  or  clear  up 
the  obscurities  of  the  translation.  The  primary  reason  for  abandoning  this 
method  was  its  tendency  to  generate  an  indirect  and  circuitous  method  of 
interpretation.  A  still  higher  motive  for  the  change  was  afforded  by  its 
probable  effect  in  promoting  thorough  biblical  learning,  and  discouraging 
the  sluggish  disposition  to  regard  the  common  version  as  the  ultimate 
authority,  and  even  to  insist  upon  its  errors  or  fortuitous  peculiarities  as 
parts  of  a  divine  revelation.  The  contrary  disposition  to  depreciate  the 
merits  of  the  English  Bible,  by  gratuitous  departures  from  its  form  or  sub- 
stance, is  comparatively  rare,  and  whore  it  does  exist  is  to  be  corrected, 
not  by  wilful  ignorance,  but  by  profound  and  discriminating  knowledge  of 
the  version  and  original.  The  practical  conclusion  in  the  present  case,  has 
been  to  make  the  Hebrew  text  exclusively  the  subject  of  direct  interpretation, 
but  at  the  same  time  to  give  the  common  version  all  the  prominence  to 
which  it  is  entitled  by  its  intrinsic  excellence,  and  by  its  peculiar  interest 
and  value  to  the  English  reader.  It  may  be  thought  that  the  shortest  and 
easiest  method  of  accomplishing  this  object  would  have  been  that  adopted  by 
Maurer,  Knobel,  and  some  other  writers,  who,  without  giving  any  continu- 
ous version  of  the  text,  confine  their  comments  to  its  difficult  expressions. 
It  was  found  upon  experiment,  however,  that  much  circumlocution  might 
be  spared  in  many  cases  by  a  simple  version,"  or  at  most  by  an  explanatory 
paraphrase.     A  literal  translation  of  the  whole  text  has  therefore  been 


PRE  FA  CE.  xi 

incorporated  in  the  present  Work,  not  as  a  mere  appendage  or  accompani- 
ment, much  less  as  a  substitute  or  rival  of  the  common  version,  which  is 
too  completely  in  possession  of  the  public  ear  and  memory  to  be  easily 
displaced  even  if  it  were  desirable,  but  simply  as  a  necessary  and  integral 
part  of  the  interpretation.  The  grounds  of  this  arrangement  will  be  stated 
more  fully  in  the  Introduction,  of  which  it  may  as  well  be  said  in  this  place 
as  in  any  other,  that  it  makes  no  pretensions  to  the  character  of  an  ex- 
haustive compilation,  but  is  simply,  as  its  name  imports,  a  preparation 
for  what  follows,  consisting  partly  in  preliminary  statements,  partly  in 
general  summaries,  the  particulars  of  which  are  scattered  through  the 
exposition. 

Another  question,  which  presented  itself  early  in  the  progress  of  the 
"Work  was  the  question  whether  it  should  be  a  record  of  the  author's  indi- 
vidual conclusions  merely,  or  to  some  extent  a  history  of  the  interpretation. 
The  only  argument  in  favour  of  the  first  plan  was  the  opportunity  which  it 
afforded  of  including  all  Isaiah  in  a  single  volume.  As  to  economy  of  time 
and  labour,  it  was  soon  found  that  as  much  of  these  must  be  expended  on 
a  simple  statement  of  the  true  sense  as  would  furnish  the  materials  for  a 
synopsis  of  the  different  opinions.  The  latter  method  was  adopted,  there- 
fore, not  merely  for  this  negative  reason,  but  also  for  the  sake  of  the  addi- 
tional interest  imparted  to  the  Work  by  this  enlargement  of  the  plan,  and 
the  valuable  antidote  to  exegetical  extravagance  and  crudity,  afforded  by  a 
knowledge  of  earlier  opinions  and  even  of  exploded  errors. 

These  advantages  were  reckoned  of  sufficient  value  to  be  purchased  even 
by  a  sacrifice  of  space,  and  it  was  therefore  determined  to  confine  the  pre- 
sent publication  to  the  Earlier  Prophecies  (Chaps.  I.-XXXIX.),  the  rest 
being  reserved  to  form  the  subject  of  another  volume.  The  separation  was 
the  more  convenient,  as  the  Later  Prophecies  (Chaps.  XL.-LXVI.)  are  now 
universally  regarded  as  a  continuous  and  homogeneous  composition,  requir- 
ing in  relation  to  its  authenticity  a  special  critical  investigation.* 

But  although  it  was  determined  that  the  Work  should  be  historical  as 
well  as  exegetical,  it  was  of  course  impossible  to  compass  the  whole  range 
of  writers  on  Isaiah,  some  of  whom  were  inaccessible,  and  others  wholly 
destitute  of  anything  original,  and  therefore  without  influence  upon  the 
progress  of  opinion.  This  distinction  was  particularly  made  in  reference 
to  the  older  writers,  while  a  more  complete  exhibition  was  attempted  of  the 
later  literature.  Some  recent  writers  were  at  fii'st  overlooked  through 
accident  or  inadvertence,  and  the  omission  afterwards  continued  for  the 
sake  of  uniformity,  or  as  a  simple  matter  of  convenience.  Some  of  these 
blanks  it  is  proposed  to  fill  in  any  further  prosecution  of  the  author's  plan. 
The  citation  of  authorities  becomes  less  frequent  and  abundant,  for  the  most 
part,  as  the  Work  advances,  and  the  reader  is  supposed  to  have  become 
familiar  with  the  individual  peculiarities  of  different  interpreters,  as  well  as 

*  [The  original  American  edition  thus  described,  and  published  at  different 
times,  formed  two  volumes  of  unequal  size,  and  that  division  of  volumes,  the  result 
of  necessity,  has  therefore  not  been  followed  in  the  present  reprint.] 


xii  PRE  FA  CE. 

with  the  way  in  which  they  usually  group  themselves  in  schools  and  parties, 
after  which  it  will  be  generally  found  sufficient  to  refer  to  acknowledged 
leaders,  or  the  authors  of  particular  interpretations.  The  prominence  given 
to  the  modern  German  wTiters  has  arisen  not  from  choice  but  from  neces- 
sity, because  their  labours  have  been  so  abundant,  because  their  influence 
is  so  extensive,  and  because  one  prominent  design  of  the  whole  Work  is  to 
combine  the  valuable  processes  and  products  of  the  new  philology  with 
sounder  principles  of  exegesis.  Hence  too  the  constant  eflbrt  to  expound 
the  book  with  scrupulous  adherence  to  the  principles  and  usages  of  Hebrew 
syntax  as  estabhshed  by  the  latest  and  best  writers.  The  reference  to  par- 
ticular gi-ammars  was  gradually  discontinued  and  exchanged  for  explanations 
in  my  own  words,  partly  for  want  of  a  conventional  standard  alike  familiar 
to  my  readers  and  myself,  partly  because  the  latter  method  was  soon  found 
upon  experiment  to  be  the  most  effectual  and  satisfactory  in  reference  to 
the  object  which  I  had  in  view. 

The  appearance  of  the  Work  has  been  delayed  by  various  causes,  but 
above  all,  by  a  growing  sense  of  its  difficulty  and  of  incapacity  to  do  it 
justice,  together  with  a  natural  reluctance  to  confess  how  little  after  all  has 
been  accomplished.  To  some  it  will  probably  be  no  commendation  of  the 
work  to  say  that  its  author  has  considered  it  his  duty  to  record  the  failure 
as  well  as  the  success  of  exegetical  attempts,  and  to  avoid  the  presumption 
of  knowing  everything  as  well  as  the  disgrace  of  knowing  nothing.  His 
deliberate  conclusion  from  the  facts  with  which  he  has  become  acquainted 
in  the  prosecution  of  his  present  task,  is  that  quite  as  much  error  has 
arisen  from  the  effi)rt  to  know  more  than  is  revealed,  as  from  the  failure  to 
apply  the  means  of  illustration  which  are  really  at  our  disposal.  As  ad- 
vantages arising  from  delay  in  this  case  may  be  mentioned,  some  additional 
maturity  of  judgment,  and  the  frequent  opportunity  of  re- consideration  with 
the  aid  of  contemporary  ^\Titers  on  Isaiah,  of  whom  seven  have  appeared 
since  this  book  was  projected,  besides  several  auxiUary  works  of  great  impor- 
tance, such  as  Fiirst's  Concordance,  Nordheimer's  Grammar,  Hiivemick's  In- 
troduction, Robinson's  Palestine,  the  later  numbers  of  Gesenius's  Thesaurus, 
and  the  last  edition  of  his  Manual  Lexicon.  It  is  proper  to  add,  that 
although  the  plan  was  formed,  and  the  collection  of  materials  begun  more 
than  ten  years  ago,  the  Work  has  been  wholly,  and  some  parts  of  it  re- 
peatedly, reduced  to  writing  as  it  passed  through  the  press.  The  advan- 
tages thus  secured  of  being  able  to  record  the  last  impressions,  and  to  ipake 
nse  of  the  latest  helps,  has  this  accompanying  inconvenience,  that  changes 
insensibly  took  place  in  the  details  of  the  execution,  tending  to  impair  its 
uniformity  without  affecting  its  essential  character.  To  such  external 
blemishes  it  is  of  course  unnecessary  to  invite  attention  by  any  more  par- 
ticular description  or  apology. 

Since  the  printing  of  the  volume  was  completed,  the  typographical  errors 
have  been  found  to  be  more  numerous  than  was  expected,  although  for  the 
most  part  leas  injurious  to  the  work  than  discreditable  to  the  author  who 
is  justly  accountable  for  this  defect,  on  account  of  the  very  imperfect  state 


PREFACE.  xiii 

in  which  the  manuscript  was  furnished  to  the  printer.  Instead  of  resorting 
to  the  usual  apologies  of  distance  from  the  press,  and  inexperience  in  the 
business,  or  appealing  to  the  fact  that  the  sheets  could  be  subjected  only 
once  to  his  revision,  he  prefers  to  throw  himself  upon  the  candour  and  in- 
dulgence of  his  readers,  and  especially  of  those  who  have  experienced  the 

same  mortification. 

****** 

[The  lacuna  indicated  by  these  asterisks  is  merely  a  brief  hst  of  Errata, 
which  have  of  course  been  corrected  in  the  present  reprint.] 

The  want  of  uniformity  too  in  the  insertion  or  omission  of  the  Hebrew 
points  is  certainly  a  blemish,  but  will  not,  it  is  hoped,  occasion  any  serious 
inconvenience,  even  to  the  inexperienced  reader.  It  arose  from  the  acci- 
dental combination  of  two  different  methods,  each  of  which  has  its  advan- 
tages, the  one  as  being  more  convenient  for  beginners,  the  other  as  favouring 
the  useful  habit  of  deciphering  the  unpointed  text,  and  rendering  t}-pogra- 
phical  correctness  more  attainable. 

Princeton,  April  20.  1846. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  LATER  PROPHECIES. 


This  Volume  *  is  a  sequel  to  the  one  which  appeared  about  a  year  ago, 
under  the  title  of  The  EarUer  Prophecies,  the  two  together  forming  a  con- 
tinuous Commentary  on  Isaiah.  While  the  same  plan  has  been  here  retained 
without  alteration,  I  have  aimed  at  greater  uniformity  of  execution,  as 
well  as  a  more  critical  selection  of  materials.  The  reasons  for  a  separate 
investigation  of  these  later  chapters  have  been  stated  in  the  introduction 
to  the  other  volume.  In  addition  to  the  authors  there  enumerated,  I  have 
carefully  compared  the  English  Version  and  remarks  of  Noyes  (second 
edition,  Boston,  1843),  and  die  Cyro-jesaianischen  W eissagungen  of  Beck 
(Leipzig,  1844) ;  the  first  of  which,  though  elegant  and  scholar-like,  is  too 
closely  modelled  on  Gesenius  to  afi'ord  much  new  matter,  and  the  other  is 
remarkable  chiefly  for  the  boldness  of  its  ultra-rationalistic  doctrines,  and 
the  juvenile  flippancy  with  which  they  are  expressed.  Of  both  these  works 
occasional  citations  will  be  met  with  in  the  present  volume. 

In  the  exposition  of  the  last  seven  chapters,  too  polemical  an  attitude, 
perhaps,  has  been  assumed  with  respect  to  a  distinguished  living  writer, 
Dr  Henderson,  to  whose  abilities  and  learning  I  have  elswewhere  endea- 
voured to  do  justice.  The  prominence  here  given  to  his  book  has  arisen 
from  his  happening  to  be  not  only  the  best  but  the  sole  representative  of 
certain  views  among  the  professed  expounders  of  Isaiah.  As  to  the  ques- 
tion in  dispute,  the  ground  which  I  have  taken  and  endeavoured  to  main- 
tain is  the  negative  position  that  the  truth  of  these  "  exceeding  great  and 
precious  promises  "  is  not  suspended  on  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews 
to  Palestine,  without  denying  such  a  restoration  to  be  possible  or  pro- 
mised elsewhere. 

In  this,  as  well  as  in  the  other  Volume,  I  may  possibly  have  pushed  the 
rule  of  rigorous  translation  to  an  extreme  ;  but  if  so,  it  is  an  extreme  from 
which  recession  is  much  easier  and  safer  than  recovery  from  that  of  laxity 
and  vagueness.     By  the  course  thus  taken,  I  am  not  without  hope  that 

[*  This  is  the  Preface  prefixed  by  the  Author  to  his  second  volume,  which  he 
designated  The  Later  Prophecies  of  Isaiah. — Ed.] 


PREFACE.  XV 

some  light  may  be  thrown  upon  the  darker  parts  of  Hebrew  Grammar,  and 
especially  the  doctrine  of  the  tenses,  which  can  never  be  completely  solved 
except  by  a  laborious  induction  of  particulars.  While  I  deem  it  proper  to 
observe  that  I  have  read  only  two  sheets  of  the  volume  during  its  progress 
through  the  press,  I  am  happy  to  add,  that  it  has  passed  through  the  hands 
of  Mr  W.  W.  Turner,  to  whom  so  many  other  works  in  this  department  are 
indebted  for  the  accuracy  of  their  execution. 

I  have  still  kept  steadily  in  view,  as  my  immediate  readers,  to  whose 
wants  the  work  must  be  adapted,  clergymen  and  students  of  theology  con- 
sidered as  the  actual  or  future  teachers  of  the  church.  Through  them  I 
may  perhaps  indulge  the  hope  of  doing  something  to  promote  correct 
opinions  and  a  taste  for  exegetical  pursuits,  as  means  of  intellectual  and 
spiritual  culture,  even  though  this  should  prove  to  be  my  last  as  well  as 
first  contribution  to  the  stores  of  sacred  learning. 

Pbinceton,  March  20.  1847. 


INTRODUCTIOK 


I.  THE  EARLIER  PROPHECIES,  CHAPS.  I.-XXXIX. 

The  English  words  prophet,  prophesy,  and  prophecy,  have  long  been  appro- 
priated, by  established  usage,  to  the  prediction  of  future  events.  To  pro- 
phesy, according  to  the  universal  acceptation  of  the  term,  is  to  foretell,  and 
a  prophet  is  one  who  does  or  can  foretell  things  yet  to  come.  This  re- 
stricted application  of  the  terms  in  question  has  materially  influenced  the 
interpretation  of  the  prophetic  scriptures  by  modern  and  especiallj-  by  Eng- 
lish writers.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  compare  the  common  use  of  these 
expressions  with  the  con*esponding  terms  in  Greek  and  Hebrew. 

The  Greek  <a^o(priTri<;  (from  '7rp6(priiM)  is  used  in  the  classics  not  only  to 
denote  specifically  a  foreteller,  but  more  generally  an  authoritative  speaker 
in  the  name  of  God,  in  which  sense  it  is  applied  to  the  official  expounders 
of  the  oracles,  and  to  poets  as  the  prophets  of  the  muses,  i.  e.  as  speaking  in 
their  name,  at  their  suggestion,  or  by  their  inspiration.  This  latitude  of 
meaning,  in  the  classical  usage  of  the  term,  agrees  exactly  with  its  appli- 
cation in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  not  only  to  those  gifted  with  the 
knowledge  of  futurity,  but  in  a  wider  sense  to  inspired  teachers  or  expounders 
of  the  will  of  God  in  the  primitive  church.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that 
our  pirophct,  prophesy,  and  prophecij,  are  much  more  restricted  in  their  im- 
port than  the  Greek  words  from  which  they  are  derived,  as  employed  both 
by  the  classical  and  sacred  writers. 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  in  this  restricted  usage  we  adhere  to  the 
primary  and  proper  import  of  the  terms,  as  the  cr^o  in  T^dpjj/i;  and  crsopjjrTj;, 
no  less  than  the  pra  in  pradico,  must  have  originally  signified  before,  i.  e. 
beforehand.  Even  this  might  be  plausibly  disputed,  as  the  primary  sense 
of  TT^o  would  seem  to  be  not  temporal  but  local,  the  idea  of  priority  in  time 
being  given  by  the  best  lexicographers  as  secondary  to  that  of  antece- 
dence, or  priority  in  place,  in  which  case  the  particle  in  composition  may 
have  originally  signified,  not  so  much  the  futurity  of  the  things  declared, 
as  the  authority  of  the  person  who  declared  them.  (Compare  rr^ossrug, 
crgo/ffra,a£vo?,  antistes,  prator,  prafectus,  foreman.)  But  even  granting  that 
the  obvious  and  common  supposition  is  correct,  viz.,  that  the  Tgo  in  w^ofriixi 
and  its  derivatives  has  primary  reference  to  time,  the  actual  extension  of 

VOL.  I.  A 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

the  terms  to  other  authoritative  declarations,  and  especially  to  those  made 
in  the  name  of  God,  is  clear  from  the  usage  both  of  the  classics  and  of  the 
New  Testament.  Looking  merely  to  these  sources  of  elucidation,  we  might 
still  assert  with  coiilidence,  that  the  modern  use  of  the  words  projihct  and 
prophecy  is  more  restricted  than  that  of  the  Greek  terms  from  which  they 
are  derived. 

But  this  is  a  very  small  part  of  the  evidence  on  which  the  affirmation 
rests.  The  prophets,  of  whom  the  New  Testament  chiefly  speaks,  are  not 
heathen  prophets,  nor  even  the  T^op^ra;  of  the  apostolic  chm-ches,  but  the 
prophets  of  the  old  dispensation.  The  terms  apphed  to  them  must  there- 
fore be  intei'preted,  not  merely  by  a  reference  to  etymology,  or  to  classical 
usage,  or  to  that  of  the  New  Testament  itself,  but  by  an  appeal  to  the  import 
and  usage  of  the  Hebrew  tenns,  which  the  Greek  ones  are  designed  to  re- 
present. As  soon  as  we  resort  to  this  sort  of  illustration,  the  doubt  which 
seemed  to  overhang  the  question,  when  considered  as  a  question  of  Greek 
usage,  disappears.  We  have  here  no  probabilities  to  balance  as  to  the 
primary  import  of  a  particle,  no  extension  of  the  meaning  of  the  whole  word 
to  account  for  or  explain  away.  The  etymology  of  i<''?3  and  the  cognate 
verbal  forms,  makes  it  impossible  to  look  upon  foresight  or  prediction  as 
their  primary  and  necessary  import.  The  only  derivation,  which  can  now 
be  regarded  as  philologically  tenable,  is  that  which  makes  the  word  origi- 
nally signify  the  act  of  pouring  forth  or  uttering,  a  natural  figure  in  all 
languages  for  speech,  and  more  especially  for  public,  solemn,  and  continuous 
discourse.  In  actual  usage,  the  Hebrew  words  are  admitted  by  modem 
writers  of  all  schools  and  creeds  to  signify  spccificall}'  one  who  speaks  (or 
the  act  of  speaking)  for  God,  not  only  in  his  name  and  by  his  authority,  but 
under  his  influence,  in  other  words,  b}^  divine  inspiration.  The  precise 
meaning  of  the  noun  5<''?3  is  clear  from  Exod.  vii.  1,  where  the  Lord  says 
unto  Moses,  See,  I  have  made  thee  a  god  to  Pharaoh,  and  Aaron  thy  brother 
shall  be  thy  prophet,  i.  e.  thy  interpreter,  thy  organ  of  communication.  (See 
Gesenius's  Thesaurus,  s.  v.  ^5?5).  The  etymology  proposed  by  Redslob, 
which  gives  ^''33  the  sense  of  a  person  sprinkled  or  baptized  with  the  Spirit 
of  God,  if  it  can  be  estabUshed,  only  makes  the  primary  and  essential  refer- 
ence to  inspiration  still  more  certain  than  the  common  one.  The  few  de- 
partures from  this  simple  elementary  idea,  which  the  lexicons  still  recognise, 
may  all  be  reduced  to  it  more  easily  and  naturally  than  to  any  other.  For 
example,  when  Abraham  is  called  a  prophet  (Gen.  xx.  7),  there  is  no  need 
of  diluting  the  sense  of  the  expression  into  that  of  a  mere  friend  of  God, 
which  is  sufficiently  implied  in  the  strict  and  common  sense  of  an  inspired 
person.  It  is  equally  unnecessary,  on  the  other  hand,  to  give  the  verb  the 
sense  oi  ravin y  or  becoming  mad,  when  applied  to  Saul  (1  Sam.  xviii.  10), 
since  it  is  there  expressly  mentioned  that  an  evil  spirit  from  God  had  come 
upon  him,  so  that  he  was  really  inspired,  however  fearful  and  mysterious 
the  nature  of  the  inspiration  may  have  been.  A  complete  induction  of  par- 
ticulars would  shew,  with  scarcely  the  appearance  of  a  doubtful  case  or  an 
exception,  that  the  essential  idea,  running  through  the  whole  Hebrew  usage 
of  the  verb  and  noun,  is  that  of  inspiration.  The  suggestion  of  Geseuius, 
that  the  verb  is  used  exclusively  in  passive  or  reflexive  forms  because  the 
prophet  was  supposed  to  be  under  a  controlling  influence,  is  not  improbable 
in  itself,  and  harmonizes  fully  with  the  usage  of  the  words  as  already  stated. 

Another  obvious  deduction  from  the  usage  of  the  language  is,  that  although 
*<''??,  like  many  other  terms  of  such  perpetual  occurrence,  is  employed  both 
in  a  wider  and  a  mere  restricted  sense,  the  distinction  thus  made  is  not  that 


INTRODUCTION.  3 

between  inspiration  in  general  and  the  foresiglit  of  the  future  in  particular. 
There  is  probably  not  a  single  instance  in  which  the  word  denotes  the  latter, 
except  as  one  important  function  of  the  power  which  it  properly  describes. 
The  gift  of  prophecy  included  that  of  prophetic  foresight,  but  it  included 
more.  The  prophet  was  inspked  to  reveal  the  will  of  God,  to  act  as  an 
organ  of  communication  between  God  and  man".  The  subject  of  the  revela- 
tions thus  conveyed  was  not  and  could  not  be  restricted  to  the  future.  It 
embraced  the  past  and  present,  and  extended  to  those  absolute  and  universal 
truths  which  have  no  relation  to  time.  This  is  what  we  should  expect  a 
priori  in  a  divine  revelation,  and  it  is  what  we  actually  find  it  to  contain. 
That  the  prophets  of  the  old  dispensation  were  not  mere  foretellers  of  things 
future  is  apparent  fi-om  their  history  as  well  as  from  their  writings.  The 
historical  argument  is  stated  forcibly  by  Gill  when  he  observes,  that  Daniel 
proved  himself  a  prophet  by  telling  Nebuchadnezzar  what  he  had  dreamed, 
as  much  as  by  interpreting  the  dream  itself ;  that  it  was  only  by  prophetic 
inspiration  that  Elijah  knew  what  Gehazi  had  been  doing  ;  and  that  the 
woman  of  Samaria  very  properly  called  Christ  a  prophet,  because  he  told 
her  all  things  that  ever  she  did.  In  all  these  cases,  and  in  multitudes  of 
others,  the  essential  idea  is  that  of  inspiration,  its  frequent  reference  to 
things  still  future  being  accidental,  i.  e.  not  included  in  the  uniform  and 
necessary  import  of  the  terms. 

The  restriction  of  these  terms  in  modern  parlance  to  the  prediction  of 
events  still  future  has  arisen  from  the  fact  that  a  large  proportion  of  the 
revelations  made  in  Scripture,  and  precisely  those  which  are  the  most  sur- 
prising and  impressive,  are  of  this  description.  The  frequency  of  such 
revelations,  and  the  prominence  given  to  them,  not  in  this  modern  usage 
merely,  but  in  the  word  of  God  itself,  admit  of  easy  explanation,  It  is 
partly  OAving  to  the  fact  that  revelations  of  the  future  would  be  naturally 
sought  with  more  avidity,  and  treated  with  more  deference,  than  any  other 
by  mankind  in  general.  It  is  fm-ther  owing  to  the  fact  that,  of  all  the  kinds 
of  revelation,  this  is  the  one  which  affords  the  most  direct  and  convincing 
proof  of  the  prophet's  insphation.  The  knowledge  of  the  present  or  the 
past,  or  of  general  truths,  might  be  imparted  by  special  inspiration,  but  it 
might  also  be  acquired  in  other  ways ;  and  this  possibility  of  com-se  makes 
the  evidence  of  inspiration  thus  aflbrded  more  complete  and  irresistible  than 
any  other.  Hence  the  function  of  foretelling  what  was  futm-e,  although  but 
a'part  of  the  prophetic  office,  was  peculiarly  conspicuous  and  prominent  in 
public  view,  and  apt  to  be  more  intimately  associated  ^vith  the  office  itself 
in  the  memory  of  man. 

These  considerations  seem  sufficient  to  account,  not  only  for  the  change 
of  meaning  which  the  words  have  undergone  in  later  usage,  but  also  for  the 
instances,  if  any  such  there  be,  in  which  the  Bible  itself  employs  them  to 
denote  exclusively  prophetic  foresight  or  the  actual  prediction  of  the  future. 
But  there  is  still  another  reason,  more  important  than  either  of  these,  af- 
forded by  the  fact,  that  the  old  dispensation,  with  all  its  peculiar  institutions, 
was  prospective  in  its  character,  a  preparation  for  better  things  to  come. 
It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  a  part  of  this  economy  so  marked  and 
prominent  as  prophecy,  should  have  exhibited  a  special  leaning  towards 
futurity. 

This  natm-ally  leads  us  fi-om  the  theoretical  idea  of  a  prophet  as  a  person 
speaking  by  divine  authority  and  inspiration,  to  the  practical  consideration 
of  the  end  or  purpose  aimed  at  in  the  whole  prophetic  institution.  This  was 
not  merely  the  relief  of  private  doubts,  much  less  the  gratification  of  pri- 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

vate  curiosity.  The  gift  of  prophecy  was  closely  connected  with  the  general 
design  of  the  old  economy.  The  foundation  of  the  system  was  the  Law,  as 
recorded  in  the  five  books  of  Moses.  In  that,  as  an  epitome,  the  rest  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  contained,  at  least  as  to  its  seminal  principles.  The 
single  hook  of  Deuteronomy,  and  that  the  vciy  one  with  which  critical 
caprice  in  modern  times  has  taken  the  most  liberties,  exhibits  specimens  of 
even-  style  employed  by  the  sacred  writers  elsewhere.  Still  more  remark- 
ably is  this  true  of  the  whole  Pentateuch,  in  reference  not  merely  to  its 
manner  but  its  matter,  as  comprising  virtually  all  that  is  developed  and 
applied  to  the  revelations  of  the  latter  books.  To  make  this  development 
and  application  was  the  business  of  the  prophets.  The  necessity  of  such 
an  institution  was  no  after-thought.  The  law  itself  provides  for  it.  The 
promise  of  a  prophet  like  unto  Moses,  in  the  eighteenth  of  Deuteronomy, 
according  to  one  of  its  most  plausible  interpretations,  comprehends  the 
promise  of  a  constant  succession  of  inspired  men,  so  far  as  this  should  be 
required  by  the  cii'cumstanceg  of  the  people,  of  which  succession  Christ 
himself  was  to  be  the  greatest. 

This  promise  was  abundantly  fulfilled.  In  every  emergency  requiring 
such  an  interposition,  we  find  prophets  present  and  active,  and  in  some 
important  periods  of  the  history  of  Israel  they  existed  in  great  numbers. 
These,  though  not  all  inspired  writers,  were  all  inspired  men,  raised  up  and 
directed  by  a  special  divine  influence,  to  signify  and  sometimes  to  execute 
the  will  of  God  in  the  administration  of  the  theocracy.  Joshua  is  expressly 
represented  as  enjoying  such  an  influence,  and  is  always  reckoned  in  the 
Jewish  tradition  as  a  prophet.  The  judges  who  succeeded  him  were  all 
raised  up  in  special  emergencies,  and  were  directed  and  controlled  by  a  spe- 
cial divine  influence  or  inspiration.  Samuel  was  one  of  the  most  eminent 
prophets.  After  the  institution  of  the  monarchy,  we  read  constantly  of 
prophets  distinct  from  the  ci^-il  rulers.  After  the  schism  between  Judah 
and  Ephraim,  there  continued  to  be  prophets  even  in  the  kingdom  of  the 
ten  tribes.  They  were  peculiarly  necessary  there  indeed,  because  the 
people  of  that  kingdom  were  cut  off  from  the  sanctuary  and  its  services,  as 
bonds  of  union  with  Jehovah.  The  prophetic  ministry  continued  through 
the  Babylonish  exile,  and  ceased  some  years  after  the  restoration,  in  the 
person  of  Malachi,  whom  the  Jews  unanimously  represent  as  the  last  of 
their  prophets. 

In  tracing  this  succession,  it  is  e'vident  that  the  history  attaches  no  im- 
portance to  the  unbroken  series  of  incumbents, 'and  describes  them  as  deriv- 
ing their  prophetic  character,  not  from  their  predecessors,  but  immediately 
from  God.  The  cases  of  Joshua  and  Elisha  are  perhaps  the  only  ones  in 
which  a  prophet  is  expressly  said  to  have  inducted  his  successor  into  office  : 
and  even  if  it  could  be  fairly  inferred  from  these  that  such  was  the  ordinaiy 
practice,  still  the  silence  of  the  history  implies  that  the  validity  of  the  pro- 
phetic ministrations  was  dependent  upon  no  external  rite  of  transfer  and 
upon  no  unbroken  continuity  in  the  succession.  This  presumption  is  the 
stronger  as  a  perfect  scries  cannot  be  made  out,  even  by  inference  and  com- 
bination, from  the  recorded  history,  which  usually  speaks  of  the  prophets 
so  as  to  suggest  the  idea,  not  so  much  of  an  order  which  could  never  be 
interrupted  or  suspended,  as  of  one  which  should  not  wholly  cease  until  its 
purpose  was  accomplished,  and  should  never  be  wanting  in  any  emergency 
which  called  for  a  divine  interposition.  In  this,  which  is  the  true  sense  of 
the  promise,  it  was  signally  fulfilled,  so  that  although  we  may  not  be  able 
to  demonstrate  a  perpetual  succession  of  inspired  representatives  or  messen- 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

gers  from  God,  we  can  safely  affirm  that  he  never  left  himself  without  wit- 
ness, or  his  people  without  counsel,  consolation,  or  reproof. 

With  respect  to  the  nature  of  the  inspiration  under  which  these  prophets 
spoke  and  acted,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Bible  itself  represents  it  as 
plenary,  or  fully  adequate  to  the  attainment  of  its  end  (2  Tim.  iii.  16 ; 
2  Pet.  i.  21).  Where  this  end  was  external  action,  it  was  sufficiently 
secured  by  the  gift  of  courage,  strength,  and  practical  wisdom.  Where  the 
instruction  of  God's  people  was  the  object,  whether  in  reference  to  the  past, 
the  present,  or  the  future  ;  whether  in  word,  in  writing,  or  in  both  ;  whether 
for  temporary  ends,  or  with  a  view  to  perpetual  preservation  ;  the  prophets 
are  clearly  represented  as  infallible,  i.e.  incapable  of  erring  or  deceiving, 
with  respect  to  the  matter  of  their  revelation.  How  far  this  object  was 
secured  by  direct  suggestion,  by  negative  control,  or  by  an  elevating  influ- 
ence upon  the  native  powers,  is  a  question  of  no  practical  importance  to 
those  who  hold  the  essential  doctrine  that  the  inspiration  was  in  all  cases 
such  as  to  render  those  who  were  inspired  infallible.  Between  this  suppo- 
sition and  the  opposite  extreme,  which  denies  inspiration  altogether,  or 
resolves  it  into  mere  excitement  of  the  imagination,  and  the  sensibilities, 
like  the  afflatus  of  a  poet  or  an  orator,  there  seems  to  be  no  definite  and 
safe  position.  Either  the  prophets  were  not  inspired  at  all  in  any  proper 
sense,  or  they  were  so  inspired  as  to  be  infallible. 

As  to  the  mode  in  which  the  required  impression  was  made,  it  seems 
both  vain  and  needless  to  attempt  any  definite  description  of  it.  The  ulti- 
mate effect  would  be  the  same  in  any  case,  if  not  upon  the  prophet,  upon 
those  who  heard  or  read  his  prophecies.  So  far  as  anything  can  be  inferred 
from  incidental  or  explicit  statements  of  the  Scripture,  the  most  usual 
method  of  communication  would  appear  to  have  been  that  of  immediate 
vision,  i.  e.  the  presentation  of  the  thing  to  be  revealed  as  if  it  were  an 
object  of  sight.  Thus  Micaiah  saw  Israel  scattered  on  the  hills  like  sheep 
without  a  shepherd  (1  Kings  xxii.  17),  and  Isaiah  sair  Jehovah  sitting  on 
a  lofty  throne  (Isa.  vi.  1).  That  this  was  the  most  usual  mode  of  presenta- 
tion, is  probable  not  only  from  occasional  expressions  such  as  those  just 
quoted,  but  from  the  fact,  that  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  prophetic 
revelations  are  precisely  such  as  might  be  painted  and  subjected  to  the  sense 
of  sight.  The  same  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  use  of  the  words  seer 
and  vision  as  essentially  equivalent  to  prophet  and  prophecy.  There  is  no 
need,  however,  of  supposing  that  this  method  of  communication,  even  if  it 
were  the  common  one,  was  used  invariably.  Some  things  in  the  prophecies 
require  us  to  suppose  that  they  were  made  known  to  the  prophet  just  as  he 
made  them  known  to  others,  /'.  e.  by  the  simple  suggestion  of  appropriate 
words.  But  this  whole  question  is  rather  one  of  cm-iosity  than  use,  even 
in  reference  to  interpretation. 

A  kindred  question,  but  distinct  from  this,  is  that  respecting  the  mental 
and  bodily  condition  of  the  prophet,  under  the  influence  of  inspiration. 
Whatever  we  imagine  to  have  been  the  mode  of  the  communication,  whether 
visual  or  verbal,  in  the  general  or  in  any  given  case,  it  may  still  be  made  a 
question  whether  the  prophet,  in  receiving  such  communications,  was  as 
fully  in  possession  of  his  faculties,  and  in  the  exercise  of  self-control,  as  at 
any  other  time ;  or  whether,  on  the  contrary,  he  was  in  what  the  Greeks 
called  iKSraeic,  a  state  of  passive  subjection  to  a  higher  power,  holding  his 
o\ni  faculties  in  temporary  but  complete  abeyance.  It  is  well  known  that 
the  prophets  and  diviners  of  the  heathen  world,  during  their  seasons  of 
pretended  inspiration,  exhibited  the  outward  signs  of  violent  excitement 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

-often  amounting  to  insanity.  That  this  was  not  regarded  as  an  accidental 
circumstance,  but  as  a  natural  and  necessary  sign  of  inspiration,  may  be 
gathered  from  the  etymological  ailinity  between  the  Greek  words  /xair/c  and 
fiavia  or  ixaiuiiai.  The  early  Fathers  uniformly  speak  of  this  maniacal 
•excitement  as  characteristic  of  the  heathen  inspiration,  whether  real  or  pre- 
tended, and  describe  the  inspiration  of  tbc  Hebrew  prophets  as  distinguished 
by  the  opposite  peculiarities  of  calmness,  self-possession,  and  active  intelli- 
gence. This  is  distinctly  and  repeatedly  asserted  by  Chrysostom,  Augustine, 
and  Jerome,  who  ascribes  the  contrary  opinion  to  Montanus  and  his  fol- 
lowers. In  our  own  day  it  has  been  revived,  not  only  by  Gesenius  and 
others,  who  deny  the  real  inspiration  of  the  prophets,  but  bj-  Hengstenberg, 
who  stedfastly  maintains  it.  In  the  first  part  of  his  Christology,  he  under- 
takes to  explain  the  disregard  of  chronological  relations  by  the  prophets,  and 
their  fragmentary  manner  of  exhibiting  a  subject,  from  the  ecstatic  state  in 
which  they  uttered  their  predictions.  This  opinion  has  not  only  been  at- 
tacked and  ridiculed  by  later  writers  of  a  very  ditlerent  school,  but  disavowed 
by  others  of  the  same  school,  especialh'  by  Hiivemick,  who,  in  his  Intro- 
duction to  the  Old  Testament  (§  199)  argues  at  length  in  favour  of  the 
doctrine  that  the  mental  condition  of  the  prophets  in  receiving  their  divine 
communications  cannot  have  been  a  morbid  one.  The  most  serious  objec- 
tioh  to  the  theory  of  Hengstenberg,  besides  its  opposition  to  the  common 
judgment  of  the  church  in  every  age,  and  its  apparent  derogation  from  the 
dignity  of  the  prophetic  character,  are,  the  want  of  any  clear  support  in 
Scripture,  and  the  inutility  of  such  a  supposition  to  attain  the  end  at  which 
he  aims,  and  which  may  just  as  well  be  answered  by  supposing  that  the 
peculiarities  ascribed  to  the  extraordinary  state  of  inspired  writers,  were 
directly  produced  by  something  negative  or  positive  in  the  divine  communi- 
cation itself.  If  they  bring  remote  events  into  juxtaposition,  the  simplest 
explanation  of  the  fact  is,  not  tbat  they  were  in  a  state  which  rendered  them 
incapable  of  estimating  chronological  distinctions,  but  that  these  distinctions 
were  withheld  from  them,  or  that  although  acquainted  with  them  they  in- 
tentionally overlooked  them  and  combined  the  objects  on  another  mode  and 
on  another  principle.  Tbis  view  of  tbc  matter  is  entireh'  sufficient  to 
explain  what  Peter  says  (1  Peter  i.  32),  without  resorting  to  a  supposition 
which,  unless  absolutely  necessary,  is  to  be  avoided  as  of  doubtful  tendency. 

It  has  been  disputed  whether  the  prophets  of  tbe  old  dispensation  had 
any  training  for  their  work  at  all  analogous  to  what  we  call  a  professional 
education.  Some  have  siipposed  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  frequently  men- 
tioned in  the  books  of  Kings,  to  have  been  young  men  in  a  course  of  pre- 
paration for  the  prophetic  ministry.  To  this  it  has  been  objected,  that 
their  ministry  depended  on  the  gift  of  inspiration,  for  which  no  human 
training  could  compensate  or  prepare  them.  Dut  although  they  could  not 
net  as  prophets  without  inspiration,  they  might  be  prepared  for  those  parts 
of  the  work  which  depended  upon  culture,  such  as  a  correct  mode  of  expres- 
sion, just  as  men  may  now  be  trained  by  education  for  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  although  convinced  that  its  success  depends  entirely  on  the  divine 
blessing.  It  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the  inspiration  under  which'  the 
prophets  acted  left  them  ui  full  possession  of  their  faculties,  native  and 
acquired,  and  with  all  their  peculiarities  of  thought  and  feeling  imimpaired. 
The  whole  subject  of  prophetic  education  is,  however,  one  of  surmise  and 
conjecture,  rather  than  of  definite  knowledge  or  of  practical  utility. 

To  the  government  the  prophets  do  not  seem  to  have  sustained  any 
definite  or  fixed  relation,  as  component  parts  of  a  political  system.     The 


.  INTRODUCTION.  7 

extent  and  manner  of  their  influence,  in  this  respect,  depended  on  the 
character  of  the  rulers,  the  state  of  aflairs,  and  the  nature  of  the  messages 
which  they  were  commissioned  to  dehver.  As  a  class,  the  prophets  influ- 
enced the  government,  not  by  official  fonnal  action,  but  as  special  mes- 
sengers from  God,  by  whom  he  was  represented  in  particular  emergencies, 
and  whose  authority  could  neither  be  disputed  nor  resisted  by  any  magis- 
trate without  abjuring  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  theocracy.  Even 
the  apostate  kings  of  Israel  acknowledged  the  divine  legation  of  ths  prophets 
of  Jehovah. 

The  opinion  that  the  priestly  and  prophetic  functions  were  regarded  as 
identical,  or  commonly  united  in  the  same  persons  under  the  theocracy,  is 
wholly  destitute  of  scriptural  foundation.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that  priests 
might  be  inspired,  and  that  the  High  Priest  may  have  been  so  always  ex 
officio.  Two  of  the  most  eminent  prophets  (Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel)  were 
unquestionably  priests.  But  the  sacerdotal  and  prophetic  offices,  as  such, 
were  perfectly  distinct,  as  well  in  function  as  in  purpose,  being  instituted 
to  promote  the  same  great  end  in  different  ways,  the  one  by  maintaining 
the  symbolical  and  sacramental  forms  of  the  theocracy,  the  other  by  correct- 
ing their  abuse,  and  keeping  constantly  in  view  their  spiritual  import  and 
design,  as  shadows  of  rjood  thinr/s  to  come. 

The  relation  of  the  prophets  to  the  people  and  the  manner  of  their  inter- 
coui'se  appear  to  have  been  subject  to  no  uniform  and  no  rigid  law.  From 
Elijah's  hairy  dress  and  John  the  Baptist's  imitation  of  it,  some  have  hastily 
inferred  that  the  prophets  were  commonly  distinguished  by  a  peculiar  dress 
and  an  ascetic  mode  of  life.  Whether  the  same  conclusion  can  be  drawn 
from  the  sackcloth  mentioned  in  Isaiah  xs.  2,  is  considered  doubtful.  The 
truth  appears  to  be,  that  from  the  very  nature  of  the  prophetic  ministry  it 
was  exempted  from  the  rules  of  rigid  outward  uniformitj'.  Eichhorn  has 
justly  mentioned  as  a  characteristic  diflerence  between  the  heathen  and  the 
Jewish  prophets,  that  whereas  the  former  tried  to  enhance  their  authority 
by  darkness  and  seclusion  and  mysterious  accompaniments,  the  latter 
moved  among  the  people  without  any  such  factitious  advantages. 

With  respect  to  the  promulgation  and  preservation  of  the  prophecies,  there 
have  been  various  opinions  and  many  fanciful  conjectures.  Some  suppose 
the  prophets  to  have  been  a  kind  of  demagogues  or  popular  orators,  whose 
speeches,  unless  previously  prepared,  were  afterwards  recorded  by  themselves 
or  others.  Another  supposition  is  that  the  prophets  were  inspired  writers, 
and  that  their  prophecies  were  published  only  as  \^Titten  compositions.  A 
distinction  as  to  this  point  has  by  some  been  drawn  between  the  earlier  and 
the  later  prophets.  From  the  death  of  Moses  to  the  accession  of  Uzziah,  a 
period  of  nearly  seven  hundred  years,  a  large  proportion  of  the  prophets  are 
supposed  to  have  performed  their  functions  orally  and  without  leaving  any 
thing  on  record ;  whereas  after  that  period  they  were  led  to  act  not  only  for 
the  present  but  the  future.  We  have  no  cause  to  doubt,  however,  that  we 
now  have  in  possession  all  that  was  written  aforetime  for  our  learning. 
And  in  the  case  of  any  prophecy,  the  question  whether  it  was  orally  delivered 
before  it  was  wi'itten  is  comparatively  unimportant,  as  oiu'  only  concern  with 
it  is  in  its  written  form.  The  idea  that  the  prophecies  now  extant  are  mere 
summaries  of  long  discourses,  is  ingenious  and  plausible  in  certain  cases, 
but  admits  of  no  historical  or  certain  demonstration. 

A  question  of  more  moment  is  that  with  respect  to  the  way  in  which  the 
wiitings  were  preserved,  whether  by  private  circulation  as  detached  compo- 
sition, or  by  solemn  enrolment  and  deposit  in  the  sanctuary.     The  modem 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

critics  who  dispute  the  integrity  and  genuineness  of  many  passages  lean  to  the 
former  supposition,  but  the  latter  is  unquestionably  favoured  by  the  whole 
drift  of  Scripture  and  the  current  of  ancient  usage,  sacred  and  profane, 
with  respect  to  writings  which  were  looked  upon  as  sacred.  It  may  well 
be  doubted  whether  among  the  ancient  Hebrews  there  was  any  extensive 
circulation  of  books  at  all,  and  it  seems  to  me  to  be  as  hard  to  disprove 
as  to  prove  the  position,  that  the  only  literature  of  the  nation  was  THE 
BOOK  or  SCRIPTURE  p?E)n),  which  from  the  time  of  Moses  was  kept 
open,  and  in  which  the  writings  of  the  prophets  may  have  been  recorded 
as  they  were  produced.  At  all  events,  it  seems  unreasonable  and  at  vari- 
ance with  the  tenor  of  Scripture  to  suppose  that  waitings  held  to  be  inspired 
were  left  to  circulate  at  random  and  to  share  the  fate  of  other  compositions, 
without  any  effort  to  attest  their  genuineness  or  to  secure  their  preservation. 
Upon  this  improbable  hypothesis  some  modern  critics  have  constructed 
a  theory  as  to  the  formation  of  the  Hebrew  Canon.  They  suppose  that 
the  books  now  composing  the  Old  Testament  were  long  in  circulation  as 
detached  compositions,  or  at  most  in  small  collections  ;  but  that  after  the 
Babylonish  exile,  measures  were  taken  to  secure  the  national  literature  from 
destruction  by  bringing  together  the  most  highly  esteemed  books  then  ex- 
tant, to  which  others  were  added  from  time  to  time  until  the  period  of  the 
Maccabees.  In  a  similar  manner  they  account  for  the  threefold  division  oi 
the  Old  Testament,  into  the  Law,  Prophets,  and  Scriptures  (D^3-in|,  ayio- 
y^apcc),  found  in  all  Hebrew  manuscripts,  and  referred  to,  not  only  by  Philo 
and  Josephus,  but  in  the  New  Testament  (Luke  xxiv.  44).  This  they  ac- 
count for,  by  supposing  that  the  five  books  of  Moses,  because  of  their  superior 
authority,  were  first  placed  together  by  themselves ;  that  the  earlier  histories 
and  prophecies  were  then  joined  in  a  second  volume ;  and  that  a  fourth  was 
opened  for  the  reception  of  books  which  might  be  afterwards  discovered 
or  composed.  The  obvious  design  of  this  whole  theory  is  to  account  for 
the  admission  of  books  into  the  canon,  which  these  critics  are  unwiUing  to 
recognise  as  ancient,  such  as  Daniel,  Esther,  Chronicles,  and  many  of  the 
Psalms. 

Others  attempt  to  account  for  the  threefold  division,  as  founded  on  the 
subjects  of  the  diff'erent  books.  But  this  supposition  is  precluded  by  the 
fact,  that  historical  books  are  found  in  all  the  three  divisions ;  Genesis  in  the 
fii'st  :  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  in  the  second  ;  Chronicles,  Ezra, 
Nehemiah,  Ruth,  and  Esther  in  the  third  ;  to  which  it  may  be  added,  that 
Daniel  is  found  in  the  third  division,  and  that  Jeremiah's  Prophecies  are 
separated  from  his  Lamentations. 

The  uniform  tradition  of  the  Jews  is,  that  the  sacred  books  were  finally 
collectej  and  arranged  by  Ezra  and  his  contemporaries,  under  the  guidance 
of  divine  inspiration,  and  that  the  threefold  division  is  coeval  with  the  forma- 
tion of  the  canon.  As  to  the  principle  of  the  division,  some  of  the  Jewish 
doctors  teach  that  it  is  founded  on  the  different  degrees  of  inspiration  under 
which  the  books  were  written,  the  higliest  being  that  of  Moses,  and  the 
lowest  that  of  the  Hagiographa  or  Scriptures.  This  last  opinion  is  not 
only  destitute  of  evidence  or  scriptural  foundation,  but  at  variance  with  the 
tenor  of  the  sacred  writings,  and  of  dangerous  tcndenc}'. 

The  most  satisfactory  solution  of  the  fact  in  question  is  the  one  which 
supposes  the  law  to  have  been  placed  first  as  the  foundation  of  the  whole, 
and  the  remaining  books  to  have  been  divided,  not  with  respect  to  their 
contents  or  the  degree  of  inspiration  in  their  writers,  but  with  respect  to 
their  official  character,  the  second  gi'eat  division  being  appropriated  to  the 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

writings  of  men  who  were  not  only  inspired  but  prophets  by  profession,  who 
possessed  not  only  the  prophetic  gift  but  the  prophetic  office,  while  the  third 
place  was  reserved  for  those  who,  although  equally  inspired,  held  no  such 
station.  Thus  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  having 
been  composed,  according  to  the  ancient  tradition,  by  ni"'N^3^  or  official 
prophets,  are  prefixed  to  the  prophecies  properly  so  called,  while  the 
writings  of  David  and  Daniel,  who  were  not  such,  are  included  in  the  third 
division. 

The  principal  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  hypothesis  arises  from  the  fact, 
that  difierent  writings  of  the  same  man,  \dz.  Jeremiah,  are  found  both  in  the 
second  and  third  division.  This  single  exception  to  the  general  rule  has  been 
accounted  for  by  some,  upon  the  ground,  that  the  book  of  Lamentations, 
although  written  by  a  Prophet  in  the  strict  sense,  is  more  an  expression  of 
personal  feeling  than  the  other  prophecies  ;  by  others,  upon  the  ground  of 
its  liturgical  character,  which  naturally  led  to  its  insertion  in  the  same  part 
of  the  Canon  with  the  Psalms.  Another  objection  to  this  whole  explanation 
of  the  threefold  division  has  been  drawn  from  the  absence  of  entire  uniformity 
in  the  application  of  the  name  ^<^?5  to  the  official  or  professional  prophet,  and 
of  n.tn  (seer)  to  an  inspired  person,  simply  as  such.  The  difficulty  here 
referred  to  does  not  lie  in  the  promiscuous  use  of  T^oipTjrjjs  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, where  David,  for  example,  is  express)}'  called  a  Prophet.  This  is 
sufficiently  explained  by  the  want  of  any  Greek  equivalent  to  seer.  But  the 
same  solution  is  not  applicable  to  the  use  of  both  words  seer  audi  prophet,  in 
the  Old  Testament  itself,  with  reference  to  one  and  the  same  person.  [E.  g. 
Gad  the  seer,  1  Chron.  xxi.  9  ;  Gad  the  prophet,  2  Sam.  xxiv.  11.)  How 
far  this  rare  departure  fi*om  the  usage,  ought  to  weigh  against  the  theory  in 
general,  or  how  far  it  may  be  accounted  for  by  special  circumstances  in  the 
case  of  Gad,  are  questions  which  may  be  considered  doubtful.  All  that  need 
be  affirmed  is  that  this  hypothesis  respecting  the  division  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon,  although  not  susceptible  of  demonstration,  is  more  satisfactory  and 
probable  than  any  other  which  has  been  proposed. 

The  application  of  the  name  D''2-in?,  ayioy^afa  or  Scriptures,  to  the 
third  division  only,  has  been  variously  explained  ;  but  the  simplest  and  most 
natural  solution  is,  that  the  first  two  divisions  having  been  distinguished  by 
appropriate  names,  the  third  was  left  in  possession  of  that  which,  if  there 
had  been  no  di\dsion,  would  have  been  appropriate  to  the  whole.  Thus  un- 
derstood, the  three  parts  of  the  Canon  are  the  Laic,  the  Prophets,  and  the 
{other)  Scriptures. 

In  the  second  of  these  great  divisions,  that  of  the  Prophets  properly  so 
called,  a  prominent  place,  and  for  the  most  part  the  first  place,  has  been 
always  held,  so  far  as  we  can  trace  its  history,  by  a  book  bearing  the  name 
of  Isaiah.  A  Talmudical  tradition  represents  it  as  having  formerly  been 
preceded  by  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.  Some  of  the  modern  German  writers 
take  advantage  of  this  statement,  as  a  ground  for  the  presumption  that  the 
book  in  its  present  form  was  not  completed  until  after  those  of  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel.  This  supposition,  the  design  of  which  is  to  facilitate  the  critical 
rejection  of  the  later  prophecies,  is  not  only  an  unauthorised  inference  from 
a  fact  extremely  dubious  at  best,  but  at  variance  with  the  simultaneous  close 
of  the  whole  canon,  which  we  have  seen  to  be  the  only  well-sustained  hypo- 
thesis. The  Talmudists  themselves  explain  the  fact  which  they  allege,  upon 
the  ground  that  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  are  for  the  most  part  minatory  pro- 
phets, and  that  the  more  consolatory  writings  of  Isaiah  were  subjoined  as  a 
relief  and  antidote.     A  far  more  probable  solution  is,  that  the  arrangement 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

in  question,  if  it  ever  prevailed,  arose  from  the  intimate  connection  of  the 
second  book  of  Kings  with  Jeremiah,  and  perhaps  from  a  traditional  ascrip- 
tion of  it  to  that  prophet  as  its  author.  The  necessity  of  any  explanation 
seems,  however,  to  be  superseded  by  the  doubt  which  overhangs  the  fact 
itself,  especially  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  uniform  position  of 
Isaiah  before  the  other  two  in  the  most  ancient  manuscripts  now  extant, 
both  of  the  Hebrew  text  and  of  the  ancient  versions. 

The  name  Isaiah  is  a  compound  word  denoting  the  SalvatiDii  of  Jehovah, 
to  which  some  imagine  that  the  Prophet  himself  alludes  in  chap.  viii.  18.  The 
abbreviated  fonn  (i^^^V^^^)  is  never  applied  in  Scripture  to  the  Prophet,  though 
the  Rabbins  employ  it  in  titles  and  inscriptions.  Both  forms  of  the  name 
are  applied  in  the  Old  Testament  to  other  persons,  in  all  which  cases  the 
English  Version  employs  a  diiferent  orthography,  viz.  Jeshaiah  or  Jesaiah. 
In  the  New  Testament  our  Version  writes  the  same  Esains,  after  ihe  exam- 
ple of  the  Vulgate,  varying  slightly  from  the  Greek  'Hcalac,  used  both  in 
the  Septuagint  and  the  New  Testament.  To  the  name  of  the  Prophet  we 
find  several  times  added  that  of  his  father  Amoz  (P^^),  which  several  of 
the  Greek  Fathers  have  confounded  with  the  name  of  the  prophet  Amos 
(D10;y),  though  they  differ  both  in  the  first  and  last  letter.  This  mistake, 
occasioned  by  the  Septuagint  version,  which  writes  both  names  alike  (' A/iwg), 
may  be  considered  the  more  venial,  as  two  of  the  latest  writers  on  Isaiah  in 
the  English  language  have,  in  the  very  act  of  setting  Cyril  and  Eusebius 
right,  themselves  committed  a  like  error  by  misspelling  ihe  name  Amos 
(DittN).  The  more  ancient  mistake  may  have  been  facilitated  by  a  Icnow- 
ledge  of  the  Jewish  maxim,  now  recorded  in  the  Talmud,  that  whenever  a 
prophet's  father  is  named,  the  father  was  himself  a  prophet.  The  Jews 
themselves,  in  this  case,  are  contented  with  observing  thw  affinity  between 
the  names  Amoz  (ptDS),  and  Amaziah  (in^yP^?),  upon  which  they  gravely 
found  a  positive  assertion  that  these  men  were  brothers,  and  that  Isaiah 
was  therefore  of  the  blood-royal,  being  cousin-german  to  the  first  king 
mentioned  in  the  opening  of  his  prophecies.  This  tradition  has  had  great 
vogue  among  Jews  and  Christians,  some  of  whom  account  for  the  urbanity 
and  polish  of  Isaiah's  manner  as  a  natural  efiect  of  his  nobility.  It  is  un- 
fortunately true,  however,  that  the  Jewish  doctors  sometimes  invent  facts 
for  the  purpose  of  filling  up  the  chasms  of  history,  and  this  is  especially  to 
be  suspected  where  the  statement  seems  to  rest  on  an  etymological  conceit 
or  any  other  fanciful  analogy.  At  all  events,  we  have  no  satisfactory  as- 
surance of  the  truth  of  this  tradition,  any  more  than  of  that  which  makes 
the  prophet  to  have  been  the  father-in-law  of  king  Manasseh.  The  most 
probable  statement  is  that  made  by  one  of  the  most  learned  and  judicious 
of  the  Ilabbins  (David  Kimchi),  that  the  family  and  tribe  to  which  Isaiah 
belonged  are  now  entirely  unknown.  Of  his  domestic  circumstances  we 
know  mereh',  that  his  wife  and  two  of  his  sons  are  mentioned  by  himself 
(chap.  vii.  3 ;  viii.  3,  4),  to  which  some  add  a  third,  as  we  shall  see  below. 

The  only  iiistorical  account  of  this  Prophet  is  containe  1  in  the  book 
which  bears  his  name,  and  in  the  parallel  passages  of  Second  Kings,  which 
exhibit  unequivocal  sigus  of  being  from  the  hand  of  the  same  writer.  The 
first  sentence  of  Isaiah's  own  book,  which  is  now  commonl}-  admitted  to  be 
genuine,  assigns  as  the  period  of  his  ministry  the  four  successive  reigns  of 
IJzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  one  of  the  most  eventful  periods  in 
the  history  of  Judah.  The  two  first  reigns  here  mentioned  were  exceed- 
ingly pi'osperous,  although  a  change  for  the  worse  appears  to  have  com- 
menced before  the  death  of  Jotham,  and  continued  through  the  reign  of 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

Ahaz,  bringing  the  state  to  the  very  verge  of  ruin,  from  which  it  was  not 
restored  to  a  prosperous  condition  until  long  after  the  accession  of  Hezekiah. 
During  this  period  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  which  had  flourished 
greatly  under  Jeroboam  II.,  for  many  years  contemporary  with  Uzziah, 
passed  through  the  hands  of  a  succession  of  usurpers,  and  was  at  length 
overthrown  by  the  Assyrians,  in  the  sixth  year  of  Hezekiah's  reign  over 
Judah. 

Among  the  neighbouring  powers,  with  whom  Israel  was  more  or  less  en- 
gaged in  conflict  during  these  four  reigns,  the  most  important  were  Dama- 
scene Syria,  Moab,  Edom,  and  the  Philistines,  who,  although  resident  within 
the  allotted  bounds  of  Judah,  still  endeavoured  to  maintain  their  position  as 
an  independent  and  a  hostile  nation.  But  the  foreign  powers  which  chiefly 
influenced  the  condition  of  south-'svestern  Asia  during  this  period,  were  the 
two  gi'eat  empires  of  Assyria  in  the  east,  and  Egypt  in  the  south-west.  By 
a  rapid  succession  of  important  conquests,  the  former  had  suddenly  acquired 
a  magnitude  and  strength  which  it  had  not  possessed  for  ages,  if  at  all. 
Egypt  had  been  subdued,  at  least  in  part,  by  Ethiopia  ;  but  this  very  event, 
by  combining  the  forces  of  two  great  nations,  had  given  unexampled  strength 
to  the  Ethiopian  dynasty  in  Upper  Egypt.  The  mutual  jealousy  and  emu- 
lation between  this  state  and  Assyria,  naturally  tended  to  make  Palestine, 
which  lay  between  them,  a  theatre  of  war,  at  least  at  intervals,  for  many 
years.  It  also  led  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah  to  take  part  in  the  con- 
tentions of  these  two  great  powers,  and  to  secure  themselves  by  uniting, 
sometimes  with  Egypt  against  Assyria,  sometimes  with  Assj'ria  against 
Eg3'pt.  It  was  this  inconstant  policy  that  hastened  the  destruction  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  exposed  that  of  Judah  to  imminent  peril. 
Against  this  policy  the  prophets,  and  especially  Isaiah,  were  commissioned 
to  remonstrate,  not  only  as  unworthy  in  itself,  but  as  implying  a  distrust  of 
God's  protection,  and  indifference  to  the  fundamental  law  of  the  theocracy. 
The  Babylonian  monarchy,  as  Havernick  has  clearly  proved,  began  to 
gather  strength  before  the  end  of  this  period,  but  was  less  conspicuous, 
because  not  yet  permanently  independent  of  AssjTia. 

The  two  most  remarkable  conjunctures  in  the  history  of  Judah  during  ) 
Isaiah's  ministry,  are,  the  invasion  by  the  combined  force  of  Sjoia  and 
Israel,  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  followed  by  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of 
the  ten  tribes,  and  the  Assyrian  invasion  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah, 
ending  in  the  miraculous  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army,  and  his  own 
ignominious  flight.  The  historical  interest  of  this  important  period  is 
further  heightened  by  the  fact  that  two  of  the  most  noted  eras  in  chronology 
fall  within  it,  viz.  the  era  of  Nabonassar,  and  that  computed  from  the  build- 
ing of  Piome. 

The  length  of  Isaiah's  public  ministry  is  doubtful.  The  aggregate  dura- 
tion of  the  four  reigns  mentioned  in  the  title  is  above  one  hundred  and 
twelve  years  ;  but  it  is  not  said  that  he  prophesied  throughout  the  whole 
reign,  either  of  Uzziah  or  Hezekiah.  Some,  it  is  true,  have  inferred  that 
his  miuistr}'  was  co-extensive  with  the  whole  reign  of  Uzziah,  because  he  is 
said  to  have  written  the  history  of  that  prince  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  22),  which 
he  surely  might  have  done  without  being  strictly  his  contemporary,  just  as 
he  may  have  written  that  of  Hezekiah  to  a  certain  date  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  82), 
and  yet  have  died  before  him.  Neither  of  these  incidental  statements  can 
be  understood  as  throwing  any  light  upon  the  question  of  chronology. 
Most  ^M-iters,  both  among  the  Jews  and  Christians,  understand  the  fii'st 
verse  of  the  sixth  chapter  as  determining  the  year  of  King  Uzziah's  death 


12  IXTRODUCTIOX. 

to  be  the  first  of  Isaiah's  public  ministry.  Some  of  the  Jewish  wi-iters  who 
adopt  this  supposition,  at  the  same  time  understand  Uzziah's  death  to 
mean  his  civil  death,  occasioned  by  the  leprosy  with  which  he  was  smitten 
in  the  twenty-fifth  year  of  his  reign,  for  his  sacrilegious  invasion  of  the 
house  of  God,  so  that  he  dwelt  in  a  separate  house  until  his  death.  There 
seems  to  be  no  sufficient  groimd  for  this  explanation  of  the  language,  or  for 
the  alleged  coincidence  of  the  event  with  the  twcntv-fifth  year  of  Uzziah's 
reign,  any  more  than  for  the  notion  of  the  oriental  Christians,  that  Isaiah 
was  deprived  of  the  prophetic  office,  for  his  sin  in  not  withstanding  Uzz'ah, 
and  after  twenty-eiglit  years  of  silence  was  restored  in  the  year  of  that 
king's  death, — a  fanciful  interpretation  of  the  facts  recorded  in  chap.  vi.  The 
modern  writers  are  agreed  in  understanding  the  expression  literally,  and  in 
connecting  the  last  year  of  Uzziah's  life  with  the  first  year  of  Isaiah's 
ministrv.  It  is  by  no  means  certain,  as  we  shall  see  below,  that  the  sixth 
chapter  is  descriptive  of  Isaiah's  inauguration  into  office,  still  less  that  it 
was  written  before  any  of  the  others.  But  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
chronological  h^'pothesis  just  stated  is  strongly  recommended  by  the  fact  of 
its  removing  all  objections  to  the  truth  of  the  inscription  (chap.  i.  1), 
founded  on  the  extreme  longevity  which  it  would  otherwise  ascribe  to  the 
prophet,  by  enabling  us  at  once  to  deduct  half  a  century.  If  we  reckon 
from  the  last  year  of  Uzziah  to  the  fourteenth  of  Hezekiah,  the  last  in  which 
we  find  any  certain  historical  traces  of  Isaiah,  we  obtain,  as  the  minimum 
of  his  prophetic  ministry,  a  period  of  forty-seven  years,  and  this,  supposing 
that  he  entered  on  it  even  at  the  age  of  thirty,  would  leave  him  at  his  death 
less  than  eighty  years  old.  And  even  if  it  be  assumed  that  he  sun-ived 
Hezekiah,  and  continued  some  years  under  his  successor,  the  length  of  his 
life  will  after  all  be  far  less  than  that  of  Jehoiada  the  High  Priest,  who  died 
in  the  reign  of  Joash  at  the  age  of  130  years.     (2  Chron.  xxiv.  15.) 

The  Jews  have  a  positive  tradition  that  he  did  die  in  the  reign  of  Manas- 
seh,  and  as  a  victim  of  the  bloodj'  persecutions  by  which  that  king  is  said 
to  have  filled  Jerusalem  with  innocent  blood  from  one  end  to  the  other 
(2  Kings  xxi.  16).  Some  accounts  go  so  far  as  to  give  the  pretext  upon 
which  the  murder  was  committed,  namely,  that  of  discrepance  between 
Isaiah's  teaching  and  the  law  of  Moses,  as  well  as  the  precise  form  of  his 
martyrdom,  by  being  sawn  asunder,  some  say  in  the  body  of  a  tree,  which 
had  opened  to  receive  him.  The  substantial  part  of  this  tradition  is  re- 
ceived as  true  by  several  of  the  Fathers,  who  suppose  it  to  be  clearly  alluded 
to  in  Heb.  xi.  37.  It  has  also  found  favour  among  many  modern  writers, 
on  the  ground  of  its  intrinsic  credibility,  and  the  antiquity  of  the  tradition. 
Hengstenberg  assents  to  it  moreover  on  the  ground  that  it  enables  us 
more  easily  to  account  for  the  peculiar  features  of  the  later  prophecies 
(chap,  xl-xlvi.),  by  supposing  them  to  have  been  written  in  the  daj'S  of 
Manasseh,  in  the  old  age  of  the  prophet,  and  after  his  retirement  from  active 
life.  Hiivernick,  on  the  other  hand,  rejects  the  tradition,  first,  on  the 
general  gi'ound  that  fabulous  accounts  are  especially  abundant  in  the  Jewish 
martyrolog}',  and  then  on  the  special  ground,  that  this  assumption  leaves 
us  unable  to  account  for  the  omission  of  Manasseh's  name  in  the  inscription 
of  the  book,  without  admitting  that  the  title  may  have  been  prefixed  to  a 
partial  collection  of  Isaiah's  prophecies,  or  by  the  hand  of  a  later  writer, 
which  he  holds  to  be  unauthorised  and  dangerous  concessions.  To  the 
suggestion  that  Manasseh  may  have  been  omitted  because  under  him  Isaiah 
had  ceased  to  appear  in  public  as  a  prophet  and  employed  himself  in  writing, 
it  is  answered  that  if  Uzziah  is  distinctly  mentioned  simply  because  Isaiah  was 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

inducted  into  office  at  the  close  of  his  long  reign,  he  could  scarcely  have 
omitted  Manasseh,  under  whom  so  large  a  proportion  of  his  prophecies  were 
written,  if  not  publicly  delivered.  In  weighing  the  arguments  of  Havernick, 
it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  his  hypothesis  compels  him  to  regard  chap, 
xxxvii.  38  as  later  than  the  times  of  Isaiah,  simply  because  the  event  there 
recorded  must  have  taken  place  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  This  fiict,  to- 
gether with  the  insufficiency  of  his  objections  to  the  contrary  hypothesis, 
may  at  least  dispose  us  to  abstain  from  such  a  positive  decision  of  the 
question  as  would  cut  us  off  from  the  assumption  of  a  longer  term  of  public 
service,  however  probable  on  other  grounds,  and  however  necessary  to  the 
full  solution  of  questions  which  may  afterwards  present  themselves  during 
the  process  of  interpretation.  With  this  proviso,  we  may  safely  leave  the 
precise  chronological  question,  as  the  Bible  leaves  it,  undetermined. 

From  the  references,  which  have  been  already  quoted,  to  the  historical 
WTitings  of  Isaiah,  some  have  inferred  that  he  was  an  official  historiogi-apher, 
in  which  capacity  the  older  prophets  seem  to  have  acted,  as  appears  from 
the  canonical  insertion  of  such  books  as  those  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel, 
and  Kings,  among  the  Prophets.  We  have  no  reason  to  suppose,  however, 
that  Isaiah  held  any  secular  office  of  the  kind,  distinct  from  his  prophetic 
ministry.  Nor  is  it  clear  in  what  sense  the  citation  of  Isaiah  by  the  Chro- 
nicles as  a  historical  authority  should  be  understood.  The  reference  may  be 
simply  to  the  historical  portions  of  his  book,  or  to  the  corresponding  passages 
of  Second  Kings,  of  which,  in  strict  discharge  of  his  official  functions,  he 
ma}'  well  have  been  the  author.  That  the  books  referred  to  were  more 
copious  histories  or  annals,  of  which  only  summaries  or  fragments  are  now 
extant,  is  a  supposition  which,  however  credible  or  even  plausible  it  may 
be  in  itself,  is  not  susceptible  of  demonstration  The  question  as  to  the 
identity  and  fate  of  these  historical  ^\'ritings  is  of  no  importance  to  the  exe- 
gesis of  the  book  before  us.  The  books  still  extant  under  the  name  of  the 
Vision  and  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  are  universally  admitted  to  be  spurious  and 
apocryphal.  Our  attention  will  therefore  be  exclusively  confined  to  the 
canonical  Isaiah. 

This  book  not  only  forms  a  part  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon  as  far  as 
we  can  trace  it  back,  but  has  held  its  place  there  without  any  change  of 
form,  size,  or  contents,  of  which  the  least  external  evidence  can  be  adduced. 
The  allusions  to  this  Prophet,  and  the  imitations  of  him,  in  the  later  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  are  not  confined  to  any  one  part  of  the  book  or  any 
single  class  of  passages.  The  apocryphal  writers  who  make  mention  of  it, 
use  no  expressions  which  imply  that  it  was  not  already  long  complete  in  its 
present  form  and  size.  The  same  thing  seems  to  be  imphed  in  the  nume- 
rous citations  of  this  book  in  the  New  Testament.  AVithout  going  here  into 
minute  details,  a  correct  idea  of  the  general  fact  may  be  conveyed  by  simply 
stating,  that  of  the  sixty-six  chapters  of  Isaiah,  as  divided  in  our  modern 
Bibles,  forty- seven  are  commonly  supposed  to  be  directly  quoted  or  distinctly 
alluded  to,  and  some  of  them  repeatedly.  The  same  thing  may  be  illustrated 
clearly  on  a  smaller  scale  by  stating,  that  in  the  twenty-one  cases  where 
Isaiah  is  expressly  named  in  the  New  Testament,  the  quotations  are  drawn 
from  the  first,  sixth,  eighth,  ninth,  tenth,  eleventh,  twenty-ninth,  fortieth, 
forty-second,  fifty-third,  sixty-first,  and  sixty-fifth  chapters  of  the  book  before 
us.  These  facts,  together  with  the  absence  of  all  countervailing  evidence, 
shew  clearly  that  the  Book  of  the  Prophet  Isaiah  (Luke  iv.  17),  Imown  and 
quoted  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  was,  as  a  whole,  identical  with  that 
which  we  have  under  the  same  name.    We  find  accordingly  a  long  unbroken 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

scries  of  interpreters,  Jewish  and  Christian,  tlirough  a  course  of  ages,  not 
only  acquiescing  in  lliis  general  statement,  but  regarding  all  the  passages 
and  parts  of  which  the  book  consists,  as  clearly  and  unquestionably  genuine. 
This  appears  for  the  most  part,  it  is  true,  not  as  the  result  of  any  positive 
reasoning  or  investigation,  but  as  a  negative  assumption,  resting  on  the  want 
of  any  proof  or  even  gi-oundof  suspicion  to  the  contrary.  Hence  it  is  that 
in  the  older  writers  on  Isaiah,  even  down  to  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  the  place  now  occupied  by  oil icivn,  in  the  modern  sense,  is  wholly 
blank.  No  one  of  course  thought  it  necessary  to  defend  what  had  never 
been  attacked,  or  to  demonstrate  what  had  never  been  disputed. 

This  neglect  of  critical  investigation  and  discussion,  although  easily  ac- 
counted for,  as  we  have  seen,  led  to  a  violent  reaction  towards  the  opposite 
extreme,  as  soon  as  the  fii'st  impulse  had  been  given  to  that  kind  of  learned 
speculation.  The  critical  processes  employed,  with  paradoxical  assurance, 
on  the  Greek  and  lloman  classics,  by  the  school  of  Bcntley,  were  transferred 
to  Scripture,  and  applied  not  only  to  particular  expressions,  but  to  whole 
passages^and  even  books.  That  this  new  method  would  be  early  carried 
to  excess,  was  not  only  to  be  apprehended  as  a  possible  contingency,  but  con- 
fidently looked  for  as  a  natural  and  even  unavoidable  result.  The  causes 
which  facilitate  inventions  and  discoveries  tend  also  to  exaggerate  their  value. 
Of  this  general  truth  we  have  abundant  illustration  without  going  beyond 
the  field  of  biblical  learning.  The  supposed  discovery  that  Buxtorf  and  the 
Rabbins  had  attached  too  much  importance  to  the  masorctic  pointing,  led 
Cappellus,  Houbigant,  and  Lowth,  to  reject  it  altogether — not  only  its 
authority  but  its  assistance — and  to  make  the  Hebrew  text  a  nose  of  wax 
between  the  fingers  of  an  arbitrary  and  capricious  criticism.  The  discovery 
that  sufficient  use  had  never  yet  been  made  of  the  analog}-  of  Arabic  in  He- 
brew lexicogi-aphy,  led  Schultens  and  his  school  to  an  extreme  which  seemed 
to  threaten  a  transfusion  of  the  spirit  of  one  language  into  the  exhausted 
vessels  of  another.  In  like  manner,  the  idea  that  the  Hebrew  text  had  been 
too  uncrilicalhj\in,nd\cd,  seems  at  first  to  have  been  wholly  unaccompanied  by 
any  apprehension  that  the  process  of  correction  could  be  cither  misapplied 
or  pushed  so  far  as  to  defeat  itself.  In  all  such  cases  the  first  movements 
must  be  tentative.  The  primary  object  is  to  ascertain  what  can  be  done. 
In  settling  this  point,  it  is  necessary  to  assume  provisionally  more  than  is 
expected  to  abide  the  test  of  final  and  decisive  experiment.  The  writers 
who  originally  undertook  to  separate  the  genuine  and  spm-ious  portions  of 
Isaiah,  acted  of  course  on  the  presumption,  that  any  part  might  prove  un- 
sound, and  therefore  set  no  bounds  to  their  avidity  for  textual  reforms  and 
innovations.  The  natural  result  was  a  grotesque  disguise  and  mutilation 
of  the  book  by  means  of  numberless  erasures,  transpositions,  combina- 
tions, and  gratuitous  assumptions  of  imaginan'  authors,  two  or  more  of 
whom  were  often  thought  to  be  identified  within  the  bounds  of  one  con- 
nected passage. 

Particular  examples  of  this  critical  mania,  as  displayed  by  Koppe,  Eich- 
horn,  Bertholdt,  and  others,  will  be  given  hereafter  in  the  exposition.  What 
has  been  here  said  in  the  general  will  suffice  to  explain  the  fact  that  these 
extravagant  results,  and  the  confusion  into  which  they  threw  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  interpretation,  soon  produced  a  new  reaction.  Rosenmiiller,  De 
Wette,  and  especially  Gesenius,  who  may  be  regarded  as  the  representatives 
of  a  more  moderate  and  later  school,  have  no  hesitation  in  expressing  their 
contempt  for  the  empirical  and  slashing  criticism  of  their  predecessors,  and, 
as  a  proof  of  their  sincerity,  assert  the  integrity  and  unity  of  many  passages 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

which  Eichhorn  and  his  fellows  had  most  wantonly  dismembered.  This 
is  undoubtedly  a  retrogi'ade  movement  in  the  right  direction,  and  as  far  as 
it  goes  has  had  a  salutary  influence,  by  making  the  ci'iticism  of  the  Hebrew 
text  something  more  than  idle  guess-work  or  fantastic  child's  play.  At  the 
same  time,  it  is  not  to  be  dissembled  that  the  ground  assumed  by  these 
distinguished  writers  is  itself,  to  use  a  favourite  expression  of  their  own, 
unkritiscli  and  nnicissenscliaftlich,  i.e.  neither  critical  nor  scientific.  The 
ground  of  this  charge  is  that  their  own  mode  of  critical  procedure  difiers 
from  that  which  they  repudiate  and  laugh  at,  only  in  a  degi-ee,  /.  e.  in  the 
extent  to  which  it  is  applied.  They  expunge,  transpose,  and  imagine  less  ; 
but  still  they  do  all  three,  and  on  precisely  the  same  principles.  They 
mark  out  no  new  method,  they  establish  no  new  standard,  but  are  simply 
the  moderate  party  of  the  same  school  which  they  represent  as  autiquirt 
and  exploded. 

The  consciousness  of  this  defect  betrays  itself  occasionally  in  the  naivete 
with  which  Gesenius  and  De  Wette  appeal  to  their  critical  feelnvj  as  the 
ultimate  ground  of  their  decisions.  The  real  principle  of  these  decisions  is 
identical  with  that  assumed  hj  Eichhorn  and  his  school,  to  wit,  that  where 
there  is  a  colourable  pretext  or  the  faintest  probability  in  favom*  of  a  change, 
it  is  entitled  to  the  preference,  always  provided  that  it  does  not  shock  the 
critical  Gefuld  of  the  performer,  a  proviso  which  experience  has  proved  to 
be  sufficient  to  prevent  all  inconveniences  that  might  arise  from  a  too  rigor- 
ous construction  of  the  rule.  If,  for  example,  after  three-fourths  of  a  sen- 
tence or  a  passage  have  been  sacrificed  because  they  may  by  possibility  be 
spurious,  it  is  found  convenient  to  retain  the  fourth,  for  any  exegetical  pur- 
pose or  to  prove  another  point,  it  is  efleeted  without  scruple  or  delaj'  by  a 
response  of  the  Gefulil  in  its  favour.  In  this  convenient  process,  the  '^r^xrov 
■^iZbo:  of  the  radical  reformers,  as  the  earlier  critics  may  be  justlj'  called, 
if  not  avowed  in  theory,  is  still  held  fast  in  practice,  viz.  the  doctrine  that 
the  general  presumption  is  against  the  truth  and  authenticity  of  everything 
traditional  or  ancient,  and  in  favour  of  whatever  can  by  any  means  be  sub- 
stituted for  it.  The  difference  between  this  and  the  old-fashioned  criticism 
seems  to  be  the  same  as  that  between  the  principle  of  English  jurisprudence, 
that  a  person  accused  is  to  be  reckoned  innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty, 
and  the  rule  adopted  in  the  criminal  proceedings  of  some  other  nations,  that 
he  ought  to  be  held  guilty  till  he  proves  his  innocence.  A  fundamental 
maxim  of  this  whole  school  of  criticism,  upper  and  lower,  first  and  last, 
extreme  and  moderate,  is  this,  that  what  is  possible  is  probable  and  may  be 
held  as  certain,  if  it  suits  the  convenience  of  the  critic  ;  in  other  words, 
"  things  must  be  as  they  may." 

Another  proof  that  this  whole  system  is  uncritical,  or  destitute  of  any 
settled  principle,  distinct  from  that  of  the  exploded  method  which  it  super- 
sedes, is  furnished  by  the  absence  of  consistency  and  unity  in  its  results.  In 
one  important  point,  these  writers,  it  is  true,  display  a  singular  agreement. 
This  is  their  unanimous  rejection  of  the  twenty-seven  chapters  at  the  end  of 
the  collection,  as  the  product  of  a  later  age  ;  a  unanimity  arising  neither 
from  the  clearness  of  the  case  nor  from  any  real  unity  of  principle  among 
the  critics  who  exhibit  it,  but  simply  from  the  fact,  now  universally  admitted, 
that  these  chapters  form  a  continuous  unbroken  composition, so  that  in  order 
to  be  rid  of  any  one  part  it  is  requisite  to  sacrifice  the  whole.  The  parti- 
cular grounds,  of  this  rejection  are  stated  and  examined  in  the  second 
part  of  the  Introduction.  The  comparison  about  to  be  made  here  will  be 
restricted  to  the  remainder  of  the  book,  with  the  exception  of  the  four 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

historical  chapters  which  connect  the  two  divisions  (chaps,  xxxvi.-xxxix.), 
and  which  have  usually  shared  the  same  fate  with  the  twenty-seven. 

The  earliest  chapters  are  precisely  those  respecting  which  these  critics  are 
the  least  divided.  It  is  commonly  agreed  among  them  that  the  six  first  are 
genuine  productions  of  Isaiah,  to  which  it  can  hardly  be  considered  an  ex- 
ception, that  chap.  ii.  2-4  is  supposed  by  many  to  be  still  more  ancient.  The 
only  observable  dissent  from  this  general  judgment  seems  to  be  the  paradoxi- 
cal opinion  of  the  Dutch  writer  lloorda,  that  chap.  ii.  2-4  is  the  only  portion 
written  by  Isaiah,  and  that  all  the  rest  of  the  first  five  chapters  is  the  work 
of  Micah  !  Chap.  vii.  1-lG  is  regarded  by  Gesenius  as  probably  not  the  com- 
position of  Isaiah,  who  is  mentioned  in  the  third  person.  This  opinion  is 
refuted  by  Hitzig  and  repudiated  by  the  later  writers.  Koppe's  idea  that 
the  twelfth  chapter  is  a  hymn  of  later  date,  after  being  rejected  by  Gesenius, 
and  revived  by  Ewald,  has  again  been  set  aside  by  Umbreit.  The  genuineness 
of  chap.  xiii.  and  chap.  xiv.  1-23  is  more  unanimously  called  in  question,  on 
account  of  its  resemblance  to  chaps,  xl.-lxvi.  which  this  whole  class  of  critics  set 
aside  as  spurious.  Chaps,  xv.  and  xvi.  are  ascribed  by  Koppe  and  Bertholdt 
to  Jeremiah ;  by  Ewald  and  Umbreit  to  au  unknown  prophet  older  than  Isaiah ; 
by  Hitzig,  Maurer,  and  Ivnobel  to  Jonah  ;  by  Hendewerk  to  Isaiah  himself. 
Eichhorn  rejects  the  nineteenth  chapter ;  Gesenius  calls  in  question  the  genu- 
ineness of  vers.  18-20;  Koppe  denies  that  of  vers.  18-25;  Hitzig  regards 
vers.  10-25  as  a  fabrication  of  the  Jewish  priest  Onias  ;  while  Rosenmiiller, 
Hendewerk,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit,  vindicate  the  whole  as  a  genuine  production 
of  Isaiah.  The  first  ten  verses  of  the  twenty-first  chapter  are  rejected  on 
the  ground  of  their  resemblance  to  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth.  Ewald 
ascribes  both  to  a  single  author ;  Hitzig  denies  that  they  can  be  from  the 
same  hand.  Ewald  makes  the  prophecy  in  chap.  xxi.  the  earlier;  Hitzig 
proves  it  to  be  later.  Koppe,  Paulus,  Eichhorn,  and  Rosenmiiller,  look  upon 
it  as  a  vat  icin  turn  ex  event  a  ;  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  the  other  later  writers 
as  a  real  prophecy.  The  twenty-third  chapter  is  ascribed  by  Movers  to 
Jeremiah  ;  by  Eichhorn  and  Ptosenmiiller  to  an  unknown  WTiter  later  than 
Isaiah  ;  by  Gesenius  and  De  Wette  to  Isaiah  himself;  by  Ewald  to  a  yoimger 
contemporary  and  disciple  of  the  prophet.  The  continuous  prophecy  con- 
tained in  chaps,  xxiv.-xxvii.  Ivnobel  shews  to  have  been  written  in  Palestine 
about  the  beginning  of  the  Babylonish  exile  ;  Gesenius  in  Babylon  towards 
the  end  of  the  captivity  and  by  the  author  of  chaps,  xl.-lxvi. ;  Umbreit,  at  the 
same  time,  but  by  a  difterent  author  ;  Gramberg,  after  the  return  from 
exile ;  Ewald,  just  before  the  invasion  of  Egypt  by  Cambyses ;  Vatke,  in 
the  period  of  the  Maccabees  ;  Hitzig,  in  Assyria  just  before  the  fall  of 
Nineveh  ;  while  Rosenmiiller,  in  the  last  editions  of  his  Scholia,  ascribes  it 
to  Isaiah  himself.  Chaps,  xxviii.-xxxiii.  are  supposed  by  Koppe  to  contain 
many  distinct  prophecies  of  diflerent  authors,  and  by  Hitzig  several  succes- 
sive compositions  of  one  and  the  same  author ;  while  most  other  wTiters 
consider  them  as  forming  a  continuous  whole.  This  is  regarded  by  Gesenius 
and  Hitzig,  notwithstanding  the  objections  of  preceding  critics,  as  a  genuine 
production  of  Isaiah  ;  l)ut  Ewald  doubts  whether  it  may  not  be  the  M'ork 
of  a  disciple.  Most  of  the  writers  of  this  school  join  chaps,  xxxiv.  and  xxxv. 
together,  as  an  unbroken  context ;  but  Hitzig  no  less  confidently  puts  them 
asunder.  Rosenmiiller,  De  Wette,  and  others,  set  these  chapters  down 
as  evidently  written  by  the  author  of  chaps,  xl.-lxvi.,  while  Ewald  on  the 
other  hand  maintains  that  this  identity  is  disproved  by  a  diflcrence  of  style 
and  diction. 

No  attempt  has  here  been  made  to  detail  the  grounds  of  these  conflicting 


INTRODUCTION.  17 

jutlgmeuts,  mucli  less  to  deckle  between  them.  This  will  be  done,  so  far  as 
it  seems  necessary,  in  the  exposition,  and  particularly  in  the  introductions  to 
the  several  chapters.  The  object  aimed  at  in  the  foregoing  statements  is  to 
shew  that  no  additional  security  or  certainty  has  been  imparted  in  the  criti- 
cism of  the  text  by  these  empirical  conjectures,  and  to  confirm  the  previous 
assertion  that  they  rest  on  no  determinate  intelligible  principle  or  standard 
of  comparison.  A  further  confirmation  of  the  same  position  is  afibrded  by 
the  tests  of  genuineness  and  antiquity,  explicitly  asserted  and  applied  by 
the  writers  of  this  school.  A  more  correct  expression  would  perhaps  be 
tests  of  spuriousness  and  later  origin  ;  for,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  use 
of  a  criterion,  in  the  hands  of  these  critics,  is  seldom  to  establish  or  con- 
firm, but  almost  always  to  discredit,  what  has  commonly  been  looked  upon 
as  genuine. 

One  of  the  siu'est  proofs  of  spuriousness,  according  to  the  theory  and 
practice  of  this  school,  is  the  occurrence  of  idioms  and  words  belonging  to  a 
period  of  Hebrew  composition  later  than  the  days  of  Isaiah.  This  method 
of  discrimination,  however  unobjectionable  in  itself,  is  nevertheless  often  so 
emploj'ed  as  to  be  altogether  violent  and  arbitrary  in  its  application.  This 
is  efiected,  first,  by  exaggerating,  in  the  general,  the  real  difiierence  between 
the  older  and  the  later  wTitings,  and  the  practical  facility  of  recognising  the 
peculiar  style  of  either.  Conclusions  which  have  properly  been  di'awn,  in 
one  case,  from  a  variety  of  premises,  including  the  assumption  of  the  date 
as  a  fact  already  known,  are  most  unreasonably  drawn  in  others,  from  a 
single  element  or  item  of  the  same  proof  in  default  of  all  the  rest.  This 
kind  of  sophistry  is  more  delusive  in  the  case  of  Hebrew  than  of  Greek  or 
Latin  criticism,  partly  because  we  have  fewer  data  upon  which  to  form  a 
judgment,  partly  because  peculiar  causes  kept  the  written  Hebrew  more  un- 
changed than  other  languages  within  a  given  period,  and  tended  to  obliterate 
in  some  degree  the  usual  distinctive  marks  of  earlier  or  later  date.  This  is 
particularly  true  if  we  assume,  as  there  are  some  strong  gi-ounds  for  doing, 
that  the  whole  ancient  literature  of  the  Hebrews  was  contained  in  the  canon 
of  their  scriptures,  so  that  later  writings  were  continually  formed  upon  a 
few  exclusive  models.  But  whether  this  be  so  or  not,  the  influence  exerted 
by  the  books  of  Moses  on  the  style  and  language  of  succeeding  writers  was 
immeasurably  greater  than  in  any  other  case  at  all  analogous. 

Besides  this  general  and  theoretical  exaggeration  of  the  difiei'ence  be- 
tween the  older  and  the  later  Hebrew,  there  is  also  chargeable  upon  these 
critics  an  habitual  proneness  to  lose  sight  of  the  distinction  between  what 
is  really  peculiar  to  the  later  books,  or  to  the  times  in  w-hich  they  were 
composed,  and  that  which  after  all,  on  any  supposition,  must  be  common 
to  the  different  periods.  That  there  must  be  a  common  stock  of  this  kind 
is  self-evident ;  and  that  it  must  be  very  great  in  comparison  with  that 
which  is  peculiar  and  distinctive,  is  as  fully  established  by  the  facts  of  this 
case  and  the  analogy  of  others  like  it,  as  any  maxim  of  comparative  philo- 
logy. And  yet  some  German  critics  of  the  modern  school,  although  they 
do  not  venture  to  avow  the  principle,  proceed  in  practice  just  as  if  they 
held  the  use  of  an  expression  by  a  later  writer  to  be  in  itself  exclusive  of 
its  use  by  one  of  a  preceding  age.  And  even  when  they  do  profess  to  make 
the  distinction  just  insisted  on,  they  often  make  it  in  an  arbitrai'y  manner, 
or  prevent  its  having  any  practical  eflect,  by  confounding  archaisms  with 
neologisms,  /.  e.  mistaking  for  corruptions  of  a  later  age  forms  of  expression 
which  have  been  transmitted  from  the  earliest  period  in  the  dialect  of  com- 

VOL.  I.  B 


18  JXTnODUCTION. 

mon  life,  bnt  arc  only  occasiouall}-  used  in  -writing,  and  cppccially  in  poetry, 
until  the  language  coascs  to  be  spoken,  and  the  difference  of  learned  and 
colloquial  style  is  thereby  lost.  The  profoundcr  study  of  comparative 
philology  in  vers'  recent  times  has  shewn  the  fallacy  of  many  si;ch  objec- 
tions to  the  antiquity  of  certain  passages,  and  at  the  same  time  shaken 
the  authority  of  similar  criticisms  in  other  cases,  not  admitting  of  direct 
refutation. 

The  bad  effect  of  these  fallacious  principles  of  criticism  is  often  aggra- 
vated by  a  want  of  consistency  and  fairness  in  their  application.  This  is 
especially  apparent  in  the  j'ounger  German  ■writers  of  this  school,  who  often 
push  to  a  practical  extreme  the  theoretical  assumptions  of  their  more  dis- 
creet or  more  enlightened  teachers.  Even  where  this  is  unintentionally 
done,  it  argues  an  eagerness  to  prove  a  point,  or  to  sustain  a  foregone  con- 
clusion, not  very  likely  to  be  found  connected  with  a  high  degree  of  candour 
and  impartiality.  A  signal  illustration  of  this  critical  unfairness  is  the 
practice  of  evading  the  most  certain  indications  of  antiquity  by  noting  them 
as  imitations  of  a  later  writer.  Where  the  recent  date  of  the  composition 
is  already  certain,  the  existence  of  such  imitations  may  be  certain  also ; 
but  to  assume  them  in  the  verv  process  of  determining  the  date,  is  little 
short  of  an  absurdit}'.  By  setting  down  whatever  can  be  found  in  other 
later  books  as  proof  of  recent  origin,  and  everything  which  cannot,  as  a 
studied  imitation  of  antiquity,  the  oldest  vsTitings  extant  may  be  proved  to 
be  a  hundred  or  a  thousand  years  younger  than  themselves.  Indeed,  it 
may  be  stated  as  a  fatal  vice  of  this  whole  system,  that  it  either  proves  too 
little  or  too  much,  that  it  is  either  pushed  too  far  or  that  it  ought  to  be 
pushed  further,  that  the  limit  of  its  application  is  determined  by  no  prin- 
ciple or  rule  but  the  convenience  or  caprice  of  the  interpreter.  Stot  pro 
rationc  voluntas.  The  critical  process  is  too  generally  this,  that  where  the 
admission  of  a  passage  as  genuine  would  lead  to  consequences  undesirable 
in  any  point  of  view,  the  critic  fastens  upon  every  singularit}'  of  thought 
or  language  as  a  gi-ound  of  suspicion,  and  the  most  unmeaning  trifles  by 
accumulation  are  converted  into  argimients  ;  whereas  in  other  cases  alto- 
gether parallel,  except  that  there  is  no  urgent  motive  for  discrediting  the 
passage,  indications  equally  abundant  and  conclusive  are  entirely  overlooked. 
Sometimes  the  evidence  of  later  date  is  found  exclusively  in  one  part  of  a 
long  unbroken  context,  all  admitted  to  be  written  by  the  same  hand,  though 
the  critic  fails  to  see  that  this  admission  is  destructive  of  his  argument  so 
far  as  it  is  founded  on  diversity  of  language  as  a  test  of  age.  For  if  a  later 
writer  can  be  so  unlike  himself,  why  not  an  older  writer  also  ? 

This  remark,  however,  is  applicable  rather  to  the  question  of  identity 
than  that  of  age.  For  a  favourite  process  of  the  modern  critics,  and  espe- 
cially of  some  below  the  highest  rank,  is  that  of  proving  a  negative,  by 
shewing  that  a  passage  or  a  book  is  not  the  work  of  its  reputed  author, 
without  attempting  to  shew  whose  it  is.  Some  of  the  means  employed 
for  the  attainment  of  this  end  might  seem  incredible,  as  serious  attempts 
at  argument,  but  for  the  formal  gravity  with  which  they  are  employed. 
Sometimes  the  demonstration  is  effected  by  enumerating  forms  of  expres- 
sion, which  occur  nowhere  else  in  the  undisputed  works  of  the  reputed 
author,  and  infen-ing  that  he  therefore  could  not  have  employed  them  in 
the  case  under  consideration.  The  first  absurdity  of  this  ratiocination  lies 
in  the  very  principle  assumed,  which  is,  in  fact,  if  not  in  form,  that  what- 
ever any  writer  has  said  once,  he  must,  as  a  general  rule,  have  said  again, 
if  not  repeatedly.     Now  what  can  be  more  certain  or  notorious  than  the 


INTRODUCTION.  19 

fact  that  what  the  greatest  writers  say  most  frequently,  is  that  which  is 
least  characteristic,  while  the  thoughts  and  expressions  which  are  most 
admired,  quoted,  and  rememhered,  are  for  the  most  part  ciitat,  hiyoijjiva, 
things  which  could  only  he  said  once,  which  would  not  bear  to  be  repeated, 
by  themselves  or  others  ?  What  would  be  thought  of  an  attempt  to  prove 
the  Ars  Poetica  spurious,  on  the  ground  that  the  woids  exlex,  sesquipedalia, 
cotis,  litura,  quincunce,  and  the  phrases  jnirpureus  paimus,  ah  ovo,  lucidiis 
ordo,  callida  junctnra,  norma  loquendi,  in  medias  res,  increduhis  odi,  sagax 
rerum,  ad  jiiiffuem,  rivas  voces,  ore  rotundo,  decies  repetita,  laudator' temporis 
acti,  the  simile  of  the  momatain  and  the  mouse,  and  the  proverbial  saying, 
ocatpet  extremum  scabies  occur  nowhere  else  in  the  ■v\Titings  of  Horace  ? 
But  this  case,  strong  as  it  is,  affords  a  very  insufficient  illustration  of  the 
theoiy  and  practice  of  the  German  critics  now  in  question.  Not  content 
with  the  assumption  of  a  false  and  arbitrary  test  of  identity,  they  make  the 
apphcation  of  it  more  unreasonable  still,  by  rejecting  every  proof  adduced 
in  opposition  to  their  doctrine,  as  itself  suspicious,  or  unquestionably 
spurious.  A  parallel  case  would  be  that  of  a  critic  who,  on  being  reminded 
that  the  phrase  ah  ovo  is  used  in  the  same  sense  in  the  third  satire,  and  ad 
unrfuem  in  the  fii'st,  should  set  the  argument  aside  by  referring  both  these 
compositions  to  the  times  of  Juvenal  or  Persius.  With  equal  justice  the 
tenth  eclogue  of  Virgil  might  be  taken  from  him,  by  first  rejecting  the 
Georgics  and  the  last  ten  books  of  the  ^Eneid  as  unquestionably  spurious, 
and  then  enumerating  all  the  single  words,  grammatical  constructions,  and 
peculiar  idioms,  to  which  no  perfect  counterparts  are  found  in  the  remain- 
der of  his  poems. 

But  besides  this  linguistical  method  of  discrediting  a  large  part  of  Isaiah 
as  unquestionably  not  his  composition,  there  is  another  process  used  for  the 
same  purpose,  which  may  be  entitled  the  rhetorical  argument,  consisting  in 
the  arbitrary  affirmation  that  the  style  of  certain  passages  is  too  prosaic, 
the  metaphors  too  much  confused,  the  rhythm  too  harsh,  the  allusions  too 
obscure,  the  illustrations  too  familiar,  the  expression  too  inelegant,  to  be 
imputed  to  so  great  a  writer.  This  mode  of  criticism  is  pregnant  with 
absurdities  pecuHar  to  itself.  In  the  first  place  may  be  stated  the  unrea- 
sonable weight  which  it  attaches  to  rhetorical  distinctions  in  general,  not 
to  mention  the  peculiar  stress  laid  on  the  technicalities  of  scholastic  rhetoric 
in  particular.  This  error  is  connected  with  a  false  h}'pothesis,  to  be  con- 
sidered afterwards,  as  to  the  light  in  which  the  prophets  viewed  themselves 
and  were  regarded  by  their  readers.  If  they  aspired  to  be  nothing  more 
than  orators  and  poets,  then  rhetorical  considerations  would  of  course  be 
paramount ;  but  if  they  believed  themselves,  and  were  believed  by  others, 
to  be  inspired  revealers  of  the  will  of  God,  it  is  absurd  to  imagine  that  they 
would  or  could  allow  the  clear  and  strong  expression  of  that  will  to  be  con- 
trolled by  mere  rhetorical  punctilios. 

Another  flaw  in  this  critical  process  is  its  puerile  assumption  that  the 
prophets,  even  as  mere  orators  and  poets,  must  be  always  doing  their  best; 
that  if  ever  striking,  they  must  strike  at  all  times  ;  that  if  ever  tender,  they 
must  always  melt ;  that  if  they  ever  soar,  they  must  be  always  in  the 
clouds ;  whereas  analogy  demonstrates  that  the  greatest  writers,  both  in 
prose  and  verse,  go  up  by  the  mountains  and  down  by  the  valleys,  or  in 
other  words,  exert  their  highest  faculties  at  intervals,  with  long  and  frequent 
seasons  of  repose,  while  poetasters  and  declaimers  prove  the  hollowness  of 
their  claims  by  a  painful  uniformity  of  tension  and  a  wearisome  monotony 
of  failure. 


20  INTRODUCTION. 

A  third  defect  is  one  which  might  with  equal  justice  have  been  charged 
against  some  arguments  before  recited,  namely,  the  vague  and  indeterminate 
character  of  this  criterion,  as  evinced  by  the  diversity  of  its  results.  Not 
only  does  one  critic  censure  what  another  critic  of  the  same  school  leaves 
unnoticed  ;  but  the  same  thing  is  positively  represented  by  the  two  as  a 
beauty  and  a  deformity,  nay  more,  as  fatal  to  the  genuineness  of  a  passage 
and  as  a  certain  demonstration  of  it.  It  may  seem  invidious  and  perhaps 
presumptuous  to  add,  that  this  unsafe  and  two-edged  instrument  could  scarcely 
be  entrusted  to  worse  hands  than  those  of  some  late  German  critics,  who, 
with  all  their  erudition,  ingenuity,  and  show  of  philosopbical  aesthetics,  are 
peculiarly  deficient  in  that  delicate  refinement  and  acute  sensibility  of  taste, 
which  a  less  profound  but  far  more  classical  and  liberal  training  has  im- 
parted even  to  inferior  scholars  of  some  other  nations,  and  especially  of 
England.  To  this  unfavourable  estimate  of  German  taste  and  literary 
judgment  there  are  eminent  exceptions,  even  in  the  ranks  of  theological 
and  biblical  learning  ;  but  among  these  it  would  be  impossible  to  class  the 
writers  who  are  most  remarkable  for  an  unhesitating  reckless  use  of  the 
rhetorical  criterion  now  in  question.  On  the  contrary,  it  may  be  stated  as 
a  curious  and  instructive  fact,  that  the  imputation  of  inelegance,  awkward- 
ness, obscurity,  and  coarseness,  has  been  lavished  on  Isaiah  with  peculiar 
prodigality  by  those  interpreters  who  seem  to  be  most  open  to  the  charge 
themselves,  and  who,  in  the  very  act  of  passing  judgment  on  the  Prophet 
or  his  wi-itings  as  devoid  of  taste  and  genius,  often  shew  most  painfully  and 
clearly  that  their  circumscribed  professional  pursuits,  however  thorough  and 
successful,  have  been  insufficient  to  compensate  for  the  want  of  a  more  en- 
larged and  humanizing  culture. 

The  revulsion  of  feeling,  necessarily  occasioned  in  the  great  majority  of 
uncultivated  minds,  by  these  rhetorical  attacks  upon  some  portions  of  Isaiah, 
with  a  view  to  prove  them  spurious,  must  be  greatly  aggravated  by  another 
argument  employed  for  the  same  purpose,  which  may  be  distinguished  from 
the  lexicographical,  grammatical,  and  rhetorical  tests  already  mentioned,  as 
the  ethical  or  moral  test.  This  consists  simply  in  accusing  certain  passages 
of  being  animated  by  a  narrow,  selfish,  mean,  and  sometimes  even  by  a  fierce, 
malignant,  cruel,  ^^ndictive,  bloodthirsty  spirit  wholly  foreign  from  Isaiah's 
character,  and  from  the  temper  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived.  Without  insist- 
ing on  the  arbitrary  difference  assumed  in  this  objection  to  exist  between 
certain  periods  of  the  sacred  history,  in  point  of  moral  elevation  and  en- 
largement, let  it  be  observed  how  perfectly  factitious  and  imaginary  this 
peculiar  tone  of  the  disputed  passages  must  be,  when  it  has  failed  to  strike 
the  most  enlightened  readers  of  the  Prophet  for  a  course  of  ages.  This  is 
a  question  wholly  different  from  that  of  philological  or  even  rhetorical  dis- 
tinctions, which  might  easily  escape  the  view  of  any  but  professional  and 
critical  readers,  and  be  first  discovered  by  the  searching  processes  of  modern 
scrutiny.  P>ut  when  the  critic  passes  from  the  field  of  orthography  and 
etymology  to  that  of  morals,  he  is  stepping  out  of  darkness  into  sunshine, 
from  the  bench  to  the  bar,  from  the  position  of  a  judge  to  that  of  an  advocate, 
who,  far  from  being  able  to  decide  the  controversy  by  a  dictum,  has  to  plead 
his  cause  at  the  tribunal  of  a  multitude  of  trained  minds,  and  enlightened 
consciences.  The  want  of  familiar  and  devotional  acquaintance  with  the 
Scriptures,  on  the  part  of  many  learned  German  critics,  must  disable  them 
from  estimating  the  advantage  thus  enjoyed  by  Christian  readers,  whose 
opinions  have  been  formed  upon  the  Gospel,  and  who  certainly  would 
be  the  first  to  mark  any  real  inconsistency  between  it  and  the  spirit  of  the 


INTRODUCTION.  21 

ancient  prophets.  To  such  spectators,  and  in  such  a  light,  there  is 
something  almost  ludicrous  in  the  solemnity  with  which  some  unbelievers 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  utter  sanctimonious  complaints  of  an  im- 
moral and  unhallowed  temper  in  those  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  which 
they,  for  reasons  afterwards  to  be  considered,  are  unwilling  to  acknowledge 
as  authentic,  while  they  pass  by,  with  discreet  indulgence,  indications  far 
more  plausible  in  other  places.  If  it  be  said,  that  these  immoral  tenden- 
cies escape  the  ordinary  reader  on  account  of  his  foregone  conclusion  that 
the  whole  proceeds  from  God,  and  therefore  must  be  right ;  the  answer  is, 
that  a  hypothesis,  which  thus  brings  all  the  parts  of  an  extensive  varied 
whole  into  agreement,  bears  upon  its  face  the  clearest  marks  of  truth,  and 
that  the  fact  alleged  affords  an  incidental  proof  that  the  position  of  the  ad- 
verse party,  which  compels  him  to  see  everything  distorted  and  at  variance 
with  itself,  must  be  a  false  one. 

This  last  suggestion  opens  a  new  view  of  the  whole  subject.  Thus  far 
the  question  has  been  stated  and  discussed  as  one  of  criticism  merely,  not  of 
hermeneutics  or  of  doctrinal  belief,  with  a  view  to  shew  that  even  on  histo- 
rical and  literary  grounds,  the  modern  German  mode  of  dealing  with  the 
text  of  Isaiah,  and  of  settHng  the  antiquity  and  genuineness  of  its  several 
parts,  is  wholly  untenable,  because  capricious,  arbitrary,  inconsistent  with 
itself,  and  at  variance  with  analogy,  good  taste,  and  common  sense.  The 
reader  must,  however,  have  observed  that  in  exposing  the  caprices  of  these 
critics,  I  have  frequently  described  them  as  resorting  to  these  methods 
only  where  they  had  strong  reasons  for  desiring  to  discredit  a  particular 
portion  of  the  book,  at  least  so  far  as  to  dispute  its  antiquity.  It  will 
now  be  proper  to  explain  how  such  a  motive  can  be  supposed  to  exist, 
the  rather  as  the  neological  interpreters  of  Germany  are  often  praised  by 
their  admirers,  on  the  ground  that,  although  they  are  sceptical,  their  very 
scepticism  renders  them  impartial,  and  gives  their  testimony  greater  weight 
in  every  case  except  where  the  question  of  inspiration  is  directly  and  for- 
mally at  issue.  The  practical  effect  of  this  superficial  estimate  has  been 
the  practice  of  adhering  servilely  to  these  neologists  until  they  openly  deny 
some  fundamental  doctrine  of  religion,  then  protesting  against  that  specific 
error,  and  again  walking  closely  in  their  footsteps,  till  another  opportunity 
or  palpable  necessity  for  protestation  or  dissent  occurs.  Besides  the  want 
of  harmony  and  unity  in  any  course  of  criticism  or  exegesis  thus  conducted, 
it  is  evident  that  such  a  mode  of  dealing  with  a  system,  which  is  known 
and  acknowledged  to  be  unsound  in  principle,  must  lead  the  writer  and  the 
reader  into  many  other  dangers  than  the  few  which  are  upon  the  surface. 
Incedis  per  iynes  sitppositos  cineri  doloso.  To  avoid  these  hidden  and  insi- 
dious dangers,  it  is  necessary  to  compare  the  different  theories  of  criticism 
and  interpretation,  not  in  their  formal  differences  merely,  but  in  their  inti- 
mate connection  with  diversities  of  fundamental  principles  and  doctrinal 
belief.  In  order  to  effect  this,  it  will  be  expedient  to  consider  briefly  the 
historical  progress  of  opinion  with  respect  to  the  principles  of  exegesis,  as 
we  have  already  traced  the  change  of  theory  and  practice  in  the  treatment 
of  the  text.  These  two  important  parts  of  the  same  great  subject  will  be 
found  to  illustrate  and  complete  each  other. 

Isaiah  himself,  even  leaving  out  of  view  the  large  part  of  his  book  which 
a  capricious  criticism  has  called  in  question,  may  be  said  to  express  every- 
where his  own  belief  that  he  was  writing  under  an  extraordinary  influence, 
not  merely  human  but  divine.  This  is  at  least  the  prima  facie  view  which 
any  unsophisticated  reader  would  derive  from  a  simple  perusal  of  his  undis- 


22  INTRODUCTION. 

puted  writings.  However  mistaken  he  might  think  the  prophet,  in  asserting 
or  assuming  his  own  inspiration,  such  a  reader  could  scarcely  hesitate  to 
grant  that  he  believed  it  and  expected  it  to  be  believed  by  others.  In  one 
of  the  oldest  and  best  of  the  Jewish  Apocrypha  (Sirach  xxiv.  25),  Isaiah  is 
called  the  great  and  faithful  prophet  who  foresaw  what  was  to  happen  till 
the  end  of  time.  Josephus  and  Philo  incidentally  bear  witness  to  his  uni- 
versal recognition  by  their  countrymen  as  one  inspired  of  God. 

We  have  seen  already  that  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  cite  the  whole  book 
of  Isaiah  with  more  frequency  than  any  other  part  of  the  Old  Testament. 
It  now  becomes  a  cpicstion  of  historical  interest  at  least,  in  what  capacity 
and  character  Isaiah  is  thus  quoted,  and  with  what  authority  he  seems  to 
be  invested  in  the  New  Testament.  The  simple  fact  that  he  is  there  so 
often  quoted,  when  connected  with  another  undisputed  fact,  to  wit,  that  his 
wi'itings,  even  at  that  early  date,  held  a  conspicuous  place  among  the  Sa- 
cred Scripttires  (/«&«  y^dij,/xa'ra,  y^afai  ayiai)  of  the  Jews,  would  of  itself 
create  a  strong  presumption  that  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  recognised  his 
inspiration  and  divine  authority.  We  are  not  left,  however,  to  infer  this 
incidentally ;  for  it  is  proved  directly  by  the  frequent  combination  of  the 
title  Prophet  with  the  name  Isaiah  (Mat.  iii.  3,  iv.  14,  viii.  17,  xii.  17  ; 
Luke  iii.  4,  iv.  17 ;  John  i.  23,  xiii.  28  ;  Acts  viii.  28-80,  xxviii.  25); 
by  the  repeated  statement  that  he  prophesied  or  spoke  by  inspiration  (Mark 
vii.  6  ;  Horn.  ix.  29) ;  by  the  express  declaration  that  some  of  his  predic- 
tions were  fulfilled  in  the  history  of  Christ  and  his  contemporaries  (Mat. 
iii.  3,  iv.  14,  viii.  17 ;  Acts  xxiii.  25) ;  and  by  the  still  more  remarkable 
statement  that  Isaiah  saw  Christ  and  spake  of  his  glory  (John  xii.  41). 
These  expressions  place  it  beyond  all  possibility  of  doubt  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament describes  Isaiah  as  a  Prophet  in  the  strictest  and  the  highest  sense 
inspired  of  God.  This  is  alleged  here,  not  as  a  reason  for  our  own  belief, 
but  simply  as  a  well-attested  fact  in  the  history  of  the  interpretation. 

Coming  down  a  little  lower,  we  find  all  the  Christian  Fathers  taking  for 
granted  the  divine  authority  and  inspiration  of  the  Prophet,  and  regulating 
their  intei-pretation  of  his  book  accordingly.  But  not  content  with  thus 
acknowledging  his  right  to  a  place  among  the  sacred  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, they  ascribe  to  him  a  certain  pre-eminence  as  belonging  rather  to 
the  new  dispensation.  Eusebius  describes  him  as  the  great  and  wonderful 
prophet,  and  even  as  the  greatest  of  prophets.  According  to  Cyril,  he  is 
at  once  a  prophet  and  apostle  ;  according  to  Jerome,  not  so  much  a  prophet 
as  an  evangelist.  The  latter  elsewhere  represents  him  as  iioii  solum,  pro- 
phetam  sed  evayigeHstam  et  apostohim,  and  his  book  as  twn  propheliam  sed 
evangeliunr.  As  the  old  Jewish  doctrine  upon  this  point  is  maintained  by 
the  rabbinical  expounders  of  the  Middle  Ages,  it  may  be  affirmed  that  both 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  according  to  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian 
tradition,  represent  Isaiah  as  inspired. 

From  the  Fathers  this  doctrine  passed  without  change  into  the  Keformed 
Church,  and  from  the  Talmudists  and  Rabbins  to  the  modern  Jews,  so  far 
as  they  continue  to  adhere  to  their  religion.  Much  as  the  Protestant  Church 
has  been  divided  since  the  Pieformation,  as  to  doctrine  in  general,  as  to  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture  in  particular,  and  even  with  respect  to  the  right 
method  of  interpreting  Isaiah,  all  schools  and  parties,  until  after  the  mid- 
dle of  the  eighteenth  century,  held  fast  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Prophet  as 
a  fundamental  principle,  to  which  all  theories  and  all  exegetical  results  must 
be  accommodated.  Even  the  lax  Arminian  school  of  Grotius  and  Le  Clerc, 
however  much  disposed  to  soften  down  the  sharp  points  and  asperities  of 


INTRODUCTION.  23 

ortliodox  opinion,  upon  this  as  well  as  other  subjects,  did  not  venture  to  dis- 
turb the  old  foundation.  The  very  faults  and  errors,  with  which  the  stricter 
theologians  charged  their  exegesis,  were  occasioned  in  a  great  degree  by 
their  attempt  to  reconcile  more  liberal  and  superficial  views  of  the  Prophet's 
meaning  with  the  indisputable  axiom  of  his  inspiration.  That  a  secret 
sceptical  misgiving  often  gave  complexion  to  their  exegesis,  is  extremely 
probable  ;  but  it  is  still  true,  that  they  did  not  venture  to  depart  from  the 
traditional  opinion  of  the  whole  church  in  all  ages,  as  to  the  canonical 
authority  and  inspiration  of  the  book  before  us.  They  sought  by  various 
means  to  belittle  and  explain  away  the  natural  results  of  this  great  prin- 
ciple ;  but  wilh  the  principle  itself  they  either  did  not  wish  or  did  not  dare 
to  meddle. 

After  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  a  memorable  change  took 
place  in  Germanj^,  as  to  the  method  of  interpreting  Isaiah.  This  change 
was  closely  connecttd  with  the  one  already  mentioned,  in  relation  to  the 
criticism  of  the  text.  As  the  sceptical  criticism  of  the  classics  was  the 
model  upon  which  that  of  the  Hebrew  text  was  formed,  so  a  like  imitation 
of  the  classical  methods  of  interpretation  became  generally  current.  The 
favourite  idea  now  was,  that  the  Hebrew  books  were  to  be  treated  simply 
and  solely  as  remains  of  ancient  Jewish  literature,  and  placed,  if  not  upon 
a  level  wilh  the  Greek  and  Roman  books,  below  them,  as  the  products  of  a 
ruder  period  and  a  less  gifted  race.  This  atfectation  was  soon  carried  out 
in  its  details  ad  nausexm.  Instead  of  prophecies,  and  psalms,  and  history, 
the  talk  was  now  of  poems,  odes,  orations,  and  mythology.  The  ecclesias- 
tical and  popular  estimate  of  the  books  as  sacred  went  for  nothing,  or  was 
laughed  at,  as  a  rehc  of  an  antiquated  system.  This  change,  although 
appai-ently  confined  to  technicalities,  could  never  have  been  wrought  without 
a  deep  defection  from  the  ancient  faith,  as  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Under  the  pretext  of  exchanging  barbarism  for  refinement,  and  of 
putting  biblical  and  classical*pursuits  upon  a  footing  of  equality,  the  essen- 
tial distinction  between  literature  and  Scripture  was  in  fact  abolished, 
without  any  visible  or  overt  violence,  by  simply  teaching  men  to  treat  them 
and  to  talk  of  them  without  discrimination. 

This  momentous  change  was  undesignedly  promoted  by  Lowth's  inge- 
nious and  successful  eftort  to  direct  attention  to  Isaiah's  character  and 
value  as  a  poet.  Believing  justly  that  the  exposition  of  the  prophet's 
writings  had  been  hindered  and  perplexed  by  a  failure  to  appreciate  the 
figurative  dress  in  which  his  thoughts  were  clothed,  the  learned  and  accom- 
phshed  prelate  undertook  to  remedy  the  evil  by  presenting,  in  the  strongest 
light  and  in  extreme  relief,  this  single  aspect  of  Isaiah's  writings.  In 
attempting  this,  he  was  unconsciously  led  to  overcolour  and  exaggerate  the 
real  points  of  difi'erence  between  the  ordinary  prose  of  history  or  legislation 
and  the  lively  elevated  prose  of  prophecy,  applying  to  the  latter  all  the  dis- 
tinctive terms  which  immemorial  usage  had  appropriated  to  the  strictly 
metrical  productions  of  the  Gi'eek  and  Roman  poets.  This  error  led  to 
several  unfortunate  results,  some  of  which  will  be  considered  in  another 
place.  The  only  one  that  need  be  mentioned  here  is  the  apparent  counte- 
nance aflbrded  by  Lowth's  theories  and  phraseology  to  the  contemporary 
efforts  of  the  earlier  neologists  in  Germany  to  blot  out  the  distinction 
between  poetry  and  prophecy,  between  the  ideal  inspiration  of  the  Muses 
and  the  real  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  was  the  more  to  be  re- 
gi'etted,  as  there  does  not  seem  to  be  the  slightest  reason  for  suspecting 
that  the  Bishop  had  departed  in  the  least  from  the  established  doctrine  of. 


24  INTHODUCTIOX. 

his  own  cburcli  and  of  every  otlier,  with  respect  to  the  divine  authority 
and  origin  of  this  or  of  the  other  sacred  books.  That  Lowth,  by  his  un- 
warrantable changes  of  the  text,  and  his  exclusive  disproportioned  protrusion 
of  the  mere  poetical  elements  in  Scripture,  gave  an  impulse  to  a  spirit  of 
more  daring  innovation  in  succeeding  writers,  is  not  more  certain  than  the 
fact,  that  this  abuse  of  his  hypotheses,  or  rather  this  legitimate  deduction  of 
their  more  remote  but  unavoidable  results,  was  altogether  unforeseen.  In 
ably  and  honestly  attempting  to  correct  a  real  error,  and  to  make  good  an 
injurious  defect,  in  the  theory  and  practice  of  intei-pretation,  he  unwittingly 
aflbrded  a  new  instance  of  the  maxim,  that  the  remedy  may  possibly  be 
worse  than  the  disease. 

By  the  German  writers,  these  new  notions  were  soon  pushed  to  an  extreme. 
Besides  the  total  change  of  phraseology  already  mentioned,  some  went  so 
far  as  to  set  down  the  most  express  predictions  as  mere  poetical  descrip- 
tions of  events  already  past.  From  this  extreme  position,  occupied  by 
Eichhorn  and  some  others,  De  Wette  and  Gesenius  receded,  as  they  did 
from  the  critical  extragavance  of  multiplying  authors  and  reducing  the 
ancient  prophecies  to  fragments.  They  admitted,  not  only  that  many  por- 
tions of  Isaiah  had  reference  to  events  still  future  when  he  wrote,  but  also 
that  he  was  inspu-ed,  reserving  to  themselves  the  right  of  putting  a  conve- 
nient sense  on  that  equivocal  expression.  Among  the  later  German  writers 
on  Isaiah,  there  is  a  marked  variety  of  tone,  as  to  the  light  in  which  the 
Prophet  is  to  be  regarded.  While  all,  in  general  terms,  acknowledge  his 
genius  and  the  literary  merit  of  his  WTitings,  some,  in  expounding  them, 
appear  to  vacillate  between  condescension  and  contempt.  Of  this  class 
Hitzig  is  perhaps  the  lowest ;  Knobel  and  Hendewerk  exhibit  the  same 
peculiarities  mth  less  uniformity  and  in  a  less  degree.  Gesenius  treats  his 
subject  with  the  mingled  interest  and  indifference  of  an  antiquary  handling 
a  curious  and  valuable  relic  of  the  olden  time.  Ewald  rises  higher  in  his 
apparent  estimation  of  his  subject,  and  habitually  speaks  of  Isaiah  in  terms 
of  admiration  and  respect.  Umbreit  goes  still  further  in  the  same  direction, 
and  employs  expressions  which  would  seem  to  identify  him  fully  with  the 
orthodox  believing  school  of  criticism,  but  for  his  marked  agi'eement  with 
neology  in  one  particular,  about  to  be  stated. 

The  successive  writers  of  this  modern  school,  however  they  may  diiler  as 
to  minor  points  among  themselves,  prove  their  identity  of  principle  by  hold- 
ing that  there  cannut  he  distinct  proplietic  foresight  of  tlie  distant  future. 
This  doctrine  is  avowed  more  explicitly  by  some  (as  by  Hitzig  and  Knobel) 
than  by  others  (as  Gesenius  and  Ewald  ;)  but  it  is  really  the  ■rr^wrov 
•4/£o6o;  of  the  whole  school,  and  the  only  bond  of  unity  between  them. 
There  is  also  a  ditierence  in  the  application  of  the  general  rule  to  specitic 
cases.  Where  the  obvious  exposition  of  a  passage  would  convert  it  into 
a  distinct  prediction,  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  usually  try  to  shew  that  the 
words  really  relate  to  something  near  at  hand,  and  within  the  reach  of 
a  sagacious  human  foresight,  while  Ewald  and  Umbreit  in  the  same  case 
choose  rather  to  convert  it  into  a  vague  anticipation.  But  they  all  agree 
in  this,  that  where  the  prophecy  can  be  explained  away  in  either  of  these 
methods,  it  must  be  regarded  as  a  certain  proof  of  later  date.  This  is  the 
real  ground,  on  which  chaps,  xl.-xlvi.  are  rcA'rrod  to  the  period  of  the  exile, 
when  the  conquests  of  Cyrus  and  the  fall  of  ]*>abylon  might  be  foreseen 
without  a  special  revelation.  This  is  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the 
modern  neological  interpreters,  iheforepone  conclusion,  to  which  all  exege- 
tical  results  must  yield  or  be  accommodated,  and  in  support  of  which  the 


INTIiODUCTION.  25 

arbitrary  processes  before  described  must  be  employed  for  the  discovery  of 
arguments,  philological,  historical,  rhetorical,  and  moral,  against  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  passage,  which  might,  just  as  easily  be  used  in  other  cases, 
■where  they  are  dispensed  with,  simpty  because  they  are  not  needed  for  the 
purpose  of  destroying  an  explicit  proof  of  inspiration. 

From  this  description  of  the  neological  interpretation  there  are  two  im- 
portant practical  deductions.  The  first  and  clearest  is,  that  all  conclusions 
founded,  or  necessarily  depending,  on  this  false  assumption,  must  of  course 
go  for  nothing  with  those  who  do  not  hold  it,  and  especially  with  those  who 
are  convinced  that  it  is  false.  Whoever  is  persuaded,  independently  of  these 
disputed  questions,  that  there  may  be  such  a  thing  as  a  prophetic  inspira- 
tion, including  the  gift  of  prescience  and  prediction,  must  of  course  be 
unaffected  b}-  objections  to  its  exercise  in  certain  cases,  resting  on  the 
general  negation  of  that  which  he  knows  to  be  true.  The  other  inference, 
less  obvious  but  for  that  very  reason  more  important,  is  that  the  false  as- 
sumption now  in  question  must  exert  and  does  exert  an  influence  extending 
far  beyond  the  conclusions  directly  and  avowedly  drawn  from  it.  He  who 
rejects  a  given  passage  of  Isaiah,  because  it  contains  definite  predictions  of 
a  future  too  remote  from  the  times  in  which  he  lived,  to  be  the  object  of 
ordinary  human  foresight,  will  of  course  be  led  to  justify  this  condemnation 
by  specific  proofs  drawn  irom  the  diction,  style,  or  idiom  of  the  passage,  its 
historical  or  archaeological  allusions,  its  rhetorical  character,  its  moral  tone, 
or  its  religious  spirit.  On  the  discovery  and  presentation  of  such  proofs, 
the  previous  assumption,  which  they  are  intended  to  sustain,  cannot  fail  to 
have  a  warping  influence.  The  writer  cannot  but  be  tempted  to  give  pro- 
minence to  trifles,  to  extenuate  difliculties,  and  to  violate  consistency  by 
making  that  a  proof  in  one  case  which  he  overlooks  in  others,  or  positively 
sets  aside  as  inadmissible  or  inconclusive.  This  course  of  things  is  not 
only  natural  but  real ;  it  may  not  only  be  expected  a  priori,  but  established 
ex  event u,  as  will  be  apparent  from  a  multitude  of  cases  in  the  course  of 
the  ensuing  exposition.  All  that  need  here  be  added  is  the  general  conclu- 
sion, that  the  indirect  effects  of  such  a  principle  are  more  to  be  suspected  than 
its  immediate  and  avowed  results,  and  that  there  cannot  be  a  graver  practi- 
cal error  than  the  one  already  mentioned  of  obsequiously  following  these 
writers  as  authoritative  guides,  except  when  they  explicitly  apply  their  rr^urov 
■^iZhi  as  a  test  of  truth.  The  only  safe  and  wise  course  is  to  treat  them,  not 
as  judges,  but  as  witnesses,  or  advocates,  and  even  special  pleaders  ;  to 
weigh  their  dicta  carefully,  and  always  with  a  due  regard  to  what  is  known 
to  be  the  unsound  basis  of  their  criticism  and  exegesis.  That  this  discre- 
tion may  be  vigilantly  exercised,  without  foregoing  the  advantages  arising 
fi-om  the  modern  philological  improvements,  is  attested  by  the  actual  ex- 
ample of  such  men  as  Hengstenberg  and  Hiivernick  and  others,  trained  in 
the  modern  German  school  of  philology,  and  fulty  able  to  avail  themselves 
of  its  advantages,  while  at  the  same  time  they  repudiate  its  arbitrary  prin- 
ciples in  favour  of  those  held  by  older  writers,  which  may  now  be  considered 
as  more  sure  than  ever,  because  founded  on  a  broader  scientific  basis,  and 
because  their  strength  has  been  attested  by  resistance  to  assaults  as  subtle 
and  as  violent  as  they  can  ever  be  expected  to  encounter.  Some  of  the 
critical  and  hermeneutical  principles  thus  established  may  be  here  exhibited, 
as  furnishing  the  basis  upon  which  the  following  exposition  of  Isaiah  is 
constructed. 

In  the  first  place,  it  may  be  propounded,  as  a  settled  principle  of  critical 
investigation,  that  the  bare  suggestion  of  a  way  in  which  the  text  may  have 


2G  INTRODUCTION. 

been  altered  in  a  given  case,  and  the  ipsisslina  verba  of  the  author,  cither  by 
fraud  or  accident,  confounded  with  the  language  of  a  later  writer,  only 
creates  a  feeble  probability  in  favour  of  the  emendation  recommended,  so 
as  at  the  utmost  to  entitle  it  to  be  compared  with  the  received  opinion. 
Even  the  clearest  case  of  critical  conjecture,  far  from  determming  the  question 
in  dispute,  only  affords  us  an  additional  alternative,  and  multiplies  the 
objects  among  which  we  are  to  choose.  Our  hypothesis  may  possibly  be 
right,  but  it  may  possibly  be  wrong,  and  between  these  possibilities  mere 
novelty  is  surely  not  sufficient  to  decide.  The  last  conjecture  is  not  on 
that  account  entitled  to  the  preference.  There  are,  no  doubt,  degrees  of 
probability,  susceptible  of  measurement;  but  in  a  vast  majority  of  cases, 
the  conjectural  results  of  the  modern  criticism  are  precisely  such  as  no  one 
would  think  of  entertaining  unless  previously  determined  to  abandon  the 
traditional  or  prevalent  belief.  If  the  common  text,  or  the  common  opinion 
of  its  genuineness,  be  untenable,  these  critical  conjectures  may  afford  the 
most  satisfactorj-  substitute  ;  but  the}'  do  not  of  themselves  decide  the  pre- 
vious question,  upon  which  their  own  utility  depends.  If  the  last  chapters 
of  Isaiah  cannot  be  the  work  of  their  reputed  author,  then  it  is  highly  pro- 
bable that  they  Vere  written  towards  the  close  of  the  Babylonish  exile  ;  but 
it  cannot  be  inferred  from  this  conditional  admission,  that  the\'  are  not 
genuine,  any  more  than  we  can  argue  that  a  statement  is  untrue,  because 
if  not  true  it  is  false.  The  characteristic  error  of  the  modern  criticism  is 
its  habitual  rejection  of  a  reading  or  interpretation,  not  because  another  is 
intrinsically  better,  but  simply  because  there  is  another  to  supply  its  place. 
In  other  words,  it  is  assumed  that,  in  a  doubtful  case,  whatever  is  estab- 
lished and  received  is  likely  to  be  spurious,  and  whatever  is  suggested  for 
the  first  time  likely  to  be  genuine,  and  therefore  entitled  not  only  to  be  put 
upon  a  footing  of  equality  with  that  to  which  it  is  opposed,  but  to  take  pre- 
cedence of  it,  so  that  ever}'  doubt  must  be  allowed  to  operate  against  the 
old  opinion  and  in  favour  of  the  new  one. 

But  in  the  second  place,  so  far  is  this  fi-om  being  the  true  principle,  that 
the  direct  reverse  is  true.  Not  only  are  the  chances,  or  the  general  pre- 
sumption, not  in  favour  of  a  change  or  innovation,  as  such  ;  they  are  against 
it,  and  in  favour  of  that  which  has  long  been  established  and  received.  The 
very  fact  of  such  reception  is  presumptive  proof  of  genuineness,  because  it 
shews  how  many  minds  have  so  received  it  without  scruple  or  objection, 
or  in  spite  of  both.  Such  a  presumption  may  indeed  be  overcome  by 
countervailing  evidence ;  but  still  the  presumption  does  exist,  and  is 
adverse  to  innovations,  simply  viewed  as  such.  If  it  were  merely  on  the 
ground,  that  the  mind,  when  perplexed  by  nearly  balanced  probabilities, 
seeks  something  to  destroy  the  equilibrium,  and  finds  it  in  the  previous 
existence  of  the  one  belief  and  its  reception  by  a  multitude  of  minds,  we 
might  allege  the  higher  claims  of  that  which  is  established  and  received,  if 
not  as  being  certainly  correct,  as  having  been  so  thought  by  others.  In 
this  the  human  mind  is  naturally  prone  to  rest,  until  enabled  by  preponde- 
rating evidence  to  make  its  own  decision,  so  that  even  in  the  most  doubtful 
cases,  it  is  safer  and  easier  to  abide  by  what  has  long  been  known  and  held 
as  true,  than  to  adopt  a  new  suggestion,  simply  because  it  cannot  be  proved 
false.  Here  again  the  fashionable  modern  criticism  differs  from  that  which 
is  beginning  even  in  Germany  to  supersede  it,  inasmuch  as  the  former 
allows  all  the  benefit  of  doubt  to  innovation,  while  the  latter  gives  it  to 
received  opinions. 

The  general  principle  just  stated  is  peculiarly  important  and  appropriate 


INTRODUCTION.  27 

in  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text,  because  so  far  as  we  can  trace  its 
history,  it  has  been  marked  by  a  degree  of  uniformity,  arising  from  a  kind 
of  supervision,  to  which  no  other  ancient  writings,  even  the  most  sacred, 
seem  to  have  been  subjected,  not  excepting  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment.    To  call  this  Jewish  scrupulosity  and  superstition  does  not  in  the 
least  impair  the  strong  presumption  which  it  raises  in  favour  of  the  text  as 
it  has  been  transmitted  to  us,  and  against  the  emendations  of  conjectui-al 
criticism.     The  wonderful  resemblance   of  the   Hebrew  manuscripts  now 
extant  is  admitted  upon  all  hands,  and  explained  as  an  effect  of  the  maso- 
retic  labours   in  the   sixth  or   seventh  century,  by  means  of  which  one 
Hebrew  text  acquired  universal  circulation.     But  this  explanation  needs 
itself  to  be  explained.     The  possibility  of  thus  reducing  many  texts  to  one 
has  nothing  to  support  it  in  the  analogy  of  other  languages  or  other  writings. 
The  variations  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  afford  a  memorable  instance 
of  the  contrary.     It  is  in  vain  to  say  that  no  such  means  were  used  to  har- 
monise and  reconcile  the  manuscripts ;    in  other  words,  that  no   Greek 
masora  existed.     How  can  its  absence  be  accounted  for,  except  upon  the 
ground,  that  the  Hebrew  critics  followed  ancient  usage,  and  recorded  a 
tradition  which  had  been  in  existence  for  a  course  of  ages  ?     These  con- 
siderations do  not  go  to  prove  the  absolute  perfection  of  the  masoretic 
text ;    but  they  unquestionably  do  create  a  very  strong   presumption — 
stronger  by  far  than  in  any  other  like  case— against  innovation  and  in 
favour  of  tradition.     The  validity  of  this  conclusion  is  in  fact  conceded  by 
the  signal  unanimity  with  which  the  recent  German  critics,  of  all  classes, 
set  aside  the  fantastic  mode  of  criticism  practised  by  Cappellus,  Houbigant, 
and  Lowth,  and  assume  the  correctness  of  the  masoretic  text  in  every  case 
except  where  the}'  are  driven  from  it  hj  the  stress  of  exegetical  necessity. 
That  the  principle  thus  universally  adopted  in  relation  to  the  criticism  of 
letters,  vrords,  and  phrases,  is  not  extended  hj  these  critics  to  the  criticism 
of  larger  passages,  argues  no  defect  or  error  in  the  principle  itself,  but  only 
a  want  of  consistent  uniformity  in  its  application.     If  it  be  true,  as  all  now 
gi'ant,  that  in  relation  to  the  elements  of  speech,  to  letters,  words,  and 
single  phrases,  we  may  safely  presume  that  the  existing  text  is  right  till  it 
is  shewn  to  be  wrong,  how  can  it  be,  that  in  relation  to  whole  sentences  or 
larger  contexts,  the  presumption  is  against  the  very  same  tradition  until 
positively  proved  to  be  correct  ?     That  this  is  a  real  inconsistency  is  not 
only  plain  upon  the  face  of  it,  but  rendered  more  unquestionable  b}-  the 
very  natural  and  easy  explanation  of  which  it  is  susceptible.     The  criticism 
of  words  and  letters,  though  identical  in  principle  with  that  of  entire  pas- 
sages, is  not  so  closely  connected  vdth  the  evidence  of  inspiration  and 
prophetic  foresight,  and  is  therefore  less  subject  to  the  operation  of  the 
fundamental  error  of  the  rationalistic  system.     This  is  the  more  remarkable 
because  in  certain  cases,  where  the  main  question  happens  to  turn  upon  a 
single  word  or  letter,  there  we  find  the  same  capricious  licence  exercised, 
without  regard  to  probability  or  evidence,  as  in  the  ordinary  processes  of 
criticism  on  a  larger  scale.     From  these  theoretical  concessions  and  these 
practical  self-contradictions  of  the  modern  critics,  we  may  safely  infer  the 
indisputable  truth  of  the  critical  principles  which  they  are  forced  to  grant, 
and  from  which  they  depart  in  practice  only  when  adherence  to  them  would 
involve  the  necessity  of  granting  that,  the  absolute  negation  of  which  is  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  their  system. 

All  this  would  be  true  and  relevant,  if  the  book  in  question  were  an 
ancient  classic,  handed  down  to  us  in  the  manner  just  described.     But. 


28  INTRODUCTION. 

Isaiah  constitutes  a  part  of  a  collection  claiming  to  be  a  divine  revelation. 
It  is  itself  expressly  recognised  as  such  in  the  sacred  books  of  the  Christian 
religion.  The  authenticity  and  inspiration  of  the  parts  are  compHcated 
together,  and  involved  in  the  general  question  of  the  inspiration  of  the  whole. 
Whatever  evidence  goes  to  establish  that  of  the  New  Testament,  adds  so 
much  to  the  weight  of  Isaiah's  authority.  Whatever  strength  the  claims  of 
the  New  Testament  derive  from  miracles,  from  moral  ellects,  from  intrinsic 
qualities,  is  shared  in  some  measure  by  the  book  before  us.  The  same 
thing  is  true  of  the  external  and  internal  evidence  that  the  Old  Testament 
proceeds  from  God.  The  internal  character  of  this  one  book,  its  agreement 
with  the  other  parts  of  Scripture,  and  with  our  highest  conceptions  of 
God,  the  place  which  it  has  held  in  the  estimation  of  intelligent  and  good 
men  thi'ough  a  course  of  ages,  its  moral  and  spiritual  influence  on  those 
who  have  received  it  as  the  Word  of  God,  so  far  as  this  can  be  determined  ' 
separately  from  that  of  the  whole  Bible  or  of  the  entire  Old  Testament ;  all 
this  invests  the  book  with  an  authority  and  dignity  which  shield  it  from  the 
petty  caprices  of  a  trivial  criticism.  Those  who  believe,  on  these  grounds, 
that  the  book,  as  a  whole,  is  inspired  of  God,  not  only  may,  but  must  be 
unwilling  to  give  ear  to  every  sceptical  or  frivolous  suggestion  as  to  the 
genuineness  of  its  parts.  Even  if  there  were  more  ground  for  misgiving 
than  there  is,  and  fewer  positive  proofs  of  authenticity,  he  whose  faith  is 
founded,  not  on  detached  expressions  or  minute  agreements,  but  on  the 
paramount  claims  of  the  whole  as  such  to  his  belief  and  reverence,  would 
rather  take  for  granted,  in  a  dubious  case,  that  God  had  providentially  pre- 
served the  text  intact,  than  lift  the  anchor  of  his  faith  and  go  adrift  upon 
the  ocean  of  conjecture,  merely  because  he  could  not  answer  every  fool 
according  to  his  folly. 

The  result  of  these  considerations  is,  that  as  the  neological  interpreters 
assume  the  impossibility  of  inspiration  and  prophetic  foresight,  as  a  principle 
immoveable  by  any  indications  to  the  contrary  .^however  clear  and  numerous, 
so  those  who  hold  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  as  a  certain  truth, 
should  suffer  this  their  general  belief  to  influence  their  judgment  on  par- 
ticular questions,  both  of  criticism  and  interpretation.  The  eftect  should 
not  be  that  of  closing  the  mind  against  conviction,  where  the  reasons  are 
sufficient  to  produce  it,  but  simply  that  of  hindering  all  concessions  to  an 
arbitrary  and  capricious  licence  of  conjecture,  and  all  gratuitous  sacrifices  of 
received  opinion  to  the  mere  possibility  of  some  new  notion.  It  is  certainly 
not  to  be  expected  that  believers  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole, 
should  be  content  to  give  up  any  of  its  parts  as  readily  as  if  it  were  an  old 
song,  or  even  a  more  valuable  relic  of  some  heathen  writer. 

In  conformity  with  what  has  just  been  stated  as  the  only  valid  principle 
of  cr'uickm,  in  the  technical  or  strict  sense,  the  laws  of  inteipretation  may 
be  well  defined  to  be  those  of  common  sense,  controlled  by  a  regard  to  the 
divine  authority  and  inspiration  of  the  book,  considered  as  a  fact  already 
estabhshed  or  received  as  true.  The  design  of  biblical  intei*pretation  is  not 
to  prove,  although  it  may  illustrate,  the  canonical  authority  of  that  which 
is  interpreted.  This  is  a  question  to  be  previously  settled,  by  a  view  of  the 
whole  book,  or  of  the  whole  collection  which  includes  it,  in  connection  with 
the  various  grounds  on  which  its  claims  to  such  authority  are  rested.  Every 
competent  expounder  of  Isaiah,  whether  infidel  or  Christian,  comes  before 
the  public  with  his  opinion  upon  this  point  formed,  and  with  a  fixed  deter- 
mination to  regulate  his  treatment  of  particulars  accordingly.  The  writer 
who  should  feign  to  be  neutral  or  indifferent  in  this  respect,  would  find  it 


INTRODUCTION.  29 

hard  to  gain  the  public  ear,  and  harder  still  to  control  the  public  judgment. 
While  the  rationalist  therefore  avowedly  proceeds  upon  the  supposition,  that 
the  book  before  him  is  and  can  be  nothing  more  than  a  human  composition, 
it  is  not  only  the  right  but  the  duty  of  the  Christian  interpreter  to  treat  it 
as  the  work  both  of  God  and  man,  a  divine  revelation  and  a  human  compo- 
sition, the  contents  of  which  are  never  to  be  dealt  with  in  a  manner  incon- 
sistent either  with  the  supposition  of  its  inspiration  or  with  that  of  its  real 
human  origin.  The  latter  hypothesis  is  so  essential,  that  there  cannot  be 
a  sound  interpretation,  where  there  is  not  a  consistent  and  a  constant  appli- 
cation of  the  same  rules  which  control  the  exposition  of  all  other  writings, 
qualified  only  by  a  constant  recollection  of  the  well-attested  claims  of  the 
book  expounded  to  the  character  of  a  divine  revelation.  One  important 
practical  result  of  this  assumption  is,  that  seeming  contradictions  and  dis- 
crepancies are  neither  to  be  passed  by,  as  they  might  be  in  an  ordinary 
composition,  nor  regarded  as  so  many  refutations  of  the  doctrine  that  the 
writing  which  contains  them  is  inspired  of  God,  but  rather  interpreted  with 
due  regard  to  the  analogy  of  Scripture,  and  with  a  constant  preference, 
where  other  things  are  equal,  of  those  explanations  which  are  most  in  agree- 
ment with  the  general  fact  of  inspiration  upon  which  the  exposition  rests. 
The  attempt  to  explain  every  passage  or  expression  by  itself,  and  to  assume 
the  prima  facie  meaning  as  in  every  case  the  true  one,  without  any  reference 
to  other  parts  of  the  same  book,  or  to  other  books  of  the  same  collection,  is 
absurd  in  theory  and  directly  contradicted  by  the  universal  usage  of  mankind 
in  determining  the  sense  of  other  writings,  while  it  practically  tends  to  put 
the  Christian  interpreter  in  a  situation  of  extreme  disadvantage  with  respect 
to  the  neologist,  who  does  not  hesitate  to  press  into  the  service  of  his  own 
interpretation  every  argument  afforded  by  analogy.  The  evil  effect  of  this 
mistaken  notion  on  the  part  of  Christian  writers  is  not  merely  that  they 
often  fail  to  vindicate  the  truth,  but  that  they  directly  contribute  to  the 
triumph  of  its  enemies. 

With  respect  to  the  prophetic  parts  of  Scripture,  and  to  the  writings  of 
Isaiah  in  particular,  a  few  exegetical  maxims  may  be  added  to  the  general 
principles  already  stated.  These,  for  the  most  part,  will  be  negative  in 
form,  as  being  intended  to  preclude  certain  fallacies  and  practical  errors, 
which  have  greatly  hindered  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  book  before  us. 
The  generic  formulas  here  used  will  be  abundantly  exemplified  hereafter  by 
specific  instances  arising  in  the  course  of  the  interpretation. 

All  prophecies  are  not  predictions,  i.  e.  all  the  writings  of  the  Prophets, 
and  of  this  one  in  particular,  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  descriptive  of  future 
events.  The  contrary  error,  which  has  arisen  chiefly  from  the  modern  and 
restricted  usage  of  the  word  prophet  and  its  cognate  terms,  has  generated 
some  of  the  most  crude  extravagances  of  prophetic  exegesis.  It  has  been 
shewn  already,  by  a  historical  and  philological  induction,  that  the  scriptural 
idea  of  prophecy  is  far  more  extensive,  that  the  prophets  were  inspired  to 
reveal  the  truth  and  will  of  God,  in  reference  to  the  past  and  present,  no 
less  than  the  future.  In  Isaiah,  for  example,  we  find  many  statements  of  a 
general  nature,  and  particularly  exhibitions  of  the  general  principles  which 
govern  the  divine  administration,  especially  in  reference  to  the  chosen 
people  and  their  enemies  or  persecutors. 

All  predictions,  or  prophecies  in  the  restricted  sense,  are  not  specific  and 
exclusive,  /.  e.  hmited  to  one  occasion  or  emergency,  but  many  are  de- 
scriptive of  a  sequence  of  events  which  has  been  often  realized.  The 
vagueness  and  indefiniteness  which  might  seem  to  attach  to  such  predic- 


80  INTRODUCTION. 

tions,  and  (by  making  their  fulfilment  more  uncertain)  to  detract  from  their 
imprcssiveness  and  value,  are  precluded  by  the  fact  that,  while  the  -whole 
prediction  frequently  admits  of  this  extensive  application,  it  includes  allu- 
sions to  particular  events,  which  can  hardly  be  mistaken.  Thus  in  some 
parts  of  Isaiah,  there  are  prophetic  pictures  of  the  sieges  of  Jerusalem, 
which  cannot  be  exclusively  applied  to  any  one  event  of  that  kind,  but  the 
■  tei-ms  and  images  of  which  are  borrowed  partly  from  one  and  partly  from 
another  through  a  course  of  ages.  This  kind  of  prophecy,  so  far  from  being 
vafnie  and  unimpressive,  is  the  clearest  proof  of  real  inspiration,  because 
more  than  any  other  beyond  the  reach  of  ordinary  human  foresight.  Thus 
the  threateniiift  against  Babylon,  contained  in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth 
chapters  of  Isaiah,  if  explained  as  a  specific  and  exclusive  prophecy  of  the 
Medo-Persian  conquest,  seems  to  represent  the  downfall  of  the  city  as  more 
sudden  and  complete  than  it  appears  in  history,  and  on  the  other  hand 
affords  a  pretext,  though  a  very  insufficient  one,  for  the  assertion  that  it 
may  have  been  composed  so  near  the  time  of  the  events  foretold  as  to  bring 
them  within  the  reach  of  uninspired  but  sagacious  foresight.  No  such 
hypothesis,  however,  will  account  for  the  extraordinary  truth  of  the  predic- 
tion when  regarded  as  a  panorama  of  the  fall  of  Babylon,  not  in  its  first  in- 
ception merely,  but  through  all  its  stages  till  its  consummation. 

All  the  predictions  of  Isaiah,  w^hether  general  or  specific,  are  not  to  be 
literally  understood.  The  ground  of  this  position  is  the  fact,  universally 
admitted,  that  the  prophecies  abound  in  metaphorical  expressions.  To 
assert  that  this  figurative  character  is  limited  to  words  and  clauses,  or  at 
most  to  single  sentences,  is  wholly  arbitrary,  and  at  variance  with  the 
acknowledged  use  of  parables,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  in 
■which  important  doctrines  and  events  are  presented  under  a  tropical  cos- 
tume, throughout  a  passage  sometimes  of  considerable  length.  These  facts 
are  sufficient  to  sustain  the  negative  position,  that  the  prophecies  are  not 
invariably  clothed  in  literal  expressions,  or  in  other  words  are  not  to  be 
always  literally  understood. 

The  prophecies  of  this  book  are  not  to  be  always  understood  in  a  figura- 
tive or  spiritual  sense.  The  contrary  assumption  has  engendered  a  vast 
motley  multitude  of  mystical  and  anagogical  interpretations,  sometimes 
superadded  to  the  obvious  sense,  and  sometimes  substituted  for  it,  but  in 
either  case  obscuring  the  true  import  and  defeating  the  design  of  the  pre- 
diction. The  same  application  of  the  laws  of  common  sense  and  of  general 
analo"}',  which  shews  that  some  predictions  must  be  metaphorical,  shews 
that  others  must  be  literal.  To  assert,  without  express  authority,  that 
prophecy  must  always  and  exclusively  be  one  or  the  other,  is  as  foolish  as 
it  would  be  to  assert  the  same  thing  of  the  whole  conversation  of  an  indi- 
vidual throughout  his  lifetime,  or  of  human  speech  in  general.  No  valid 
reason  can  be  given  for  applying  this  exclusive  canon  of  interpretation  to 
the  prophecies,  which  would  not  justify  its  application  to  the  Iliad,  the 
JEneid,  the  Divina  Commedia,  or  the  Paradise  Lost,  an  application  fruitful 
only  in  absurdities.  Isaiah's  prophecies  are  therefore  not  to  be  expounded 
on  the  general  principle,  that  either  a  literal  or  figurative  sense  must  be 
assumed  wherever  it  is  possible.  We  have  already  seen  the  fallacies  re- 
sulting from  the  assumption,  that  whatever  is  possible  is  probable  or  cer- 
tain. '^To  set  aside  the  obvious  and  strict  sense,  Avherever  it  can  be  done 
without  absurdity,  is  forbidden  by  the  very  nature  of  the  ditleronce  between 
literal  and  figurative  language.  That  which  is  regular  and  normal  must  at 
times  assert  its  rights  or  it  becomes  anomalous.     On  the  other  hand,  to 


INTRODUCTION.  31 

claim  precedence  for  the  strict  and  proper  sense,  in  every  case,  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  fact  that  sj'mhols,  emhlems,  images,  and  tropes,  are  charac- 
teristic of  prophetic  language.  In  a  word,  the  question  hetween  literal  and 
tropical  interpretation  is  not  to  he  determined  by  the  application  of  invari- 
able formulas.  The  same  remark  may  be  applied  to  the  vexed  question  with 
respect  to  types  and  double  senses.  The  old  extreme  of  constantly  assum- 
ing these  wherever  it  is  possible,  and  the  later  extreme  of  denying  their 
existence,  may  be  both  considered  as  exploded  errors.  That  words  may  be 
naturally  used  with  a  primary  and  secondary  reference,  is  clear  from  all 
analog}^  That  some  things  in  the  old  dispensation  were  intended  to  be 
tj'pes  of  corresponding  objects  in  the  new,  is  clear  from  the  New  Testament. 
A  fantastic  2>^iilotijpia  is  not  more  likely  to  engender  error  than  a  morbid 
typnplwhia,  except  that  the  first  is  not  merely  negative  in  its  effects,  and 
may  be  exercised  ad  libitum,  whereas  the  other  prides  itself  on  never  adding 
to  the  revelation,  but  is  satisfied  with  taking  from  it.  Both  may  exist,  and 
both  must  be  avoided,  not  by  the  use  of  nostrums  and  universal  rules,  but 
by  the  exercise  of  sound  discretion  in  specific  cases,  guided  by  the  obvious 
canon,  founded  on  experience  and  analogy,  that  types  and  double  senses  do 
not  constitute  the  staple  even  of  prophetic  language,  and  are  therefore  not 
to  be  wantonly  assumed,  in  cases  where  a  simpler  and  more  obvious  ex- 
position is  abundantly  sufficient  to  meet  all  the  requisitions  of  the  text  and 
context. 

The  question,  under  which  of  these  descriptions  any  prophecy  must  be 
arranged,  i.e.  the  question  whether  it  is  strictly  a  prediction,  and  if  so, 
whether  it  is  general  or  particular,  literal  or  figurative,  can  only  be  deter- 
mined by  a  thorough  independent  scrutiny  of  each  case  by  itself,  in  refer- 
ence to  form  and  substance,  text  and  context,  without  regard  to  arbitrary 
and  exclusive  theories,  but  with  a  due  regard  to  analogy  of  Scripture  in 
general,  and  of  other  prophecies  in  particular,  especially  of  such  as  belong 
to  the  same  writer,  or  at  least  to  the  same  period,  and  apparently  relate  to 
the  same  subject.  This  is  far  from  being  so  attractive  or  so  easy  as  the 
sweeping  application  of  a  comprehensive  canon  to  all  cases,  like  and  un- 
like ;  but  it  seems  to  be  the  only  process  likely  to  afford  a  satisfactoiy 
result,  and  one  main  purpose  of  the  following  exposition  is  to  prove  its  effi- 
cacy b}'  a  laborious  and  fair  experiment. 

In  executing  this  design,  it  is  essential  that  regard  should  be  paid  to  the 
exterior  form  as  well  as  to  the  substance  of  a  passage,  that  rhetorical  embel- 
lishments should  be  distinguished  from  didactic  propositions,  that  prosaic 
and  poetical  peculiarities  should  be  distinctly  and  correctly  estimated  at  their 
real  value.  Experience  has  clearly  shewn,  that  such  discrimination  does  not 
always  accompany  the  habit  of  perpetually  praising  the  sublimity  and  beauty 
of  the  author's  style,  a  practice  perfectly  compatible  with  very  indistinct  and 
even  false  conceptions  of  rhetorical  propriety.  The  characteristics  of  Isaiah, 
as  a  writer,  appear  by  some  to  be  regarded  as  consisting  merely  in  the  fre- 
quent occuiTence  of  peculiar  fonns  of  speech,  for  which  they  are  continually 
on  the  watch,  and  ever  ready  to  imagine  if  they  cannot  find  them.  The 
favourite  phenomenon  of  this  kind  with  the  latest  wi'iters  is  paronomasia,  an 
intentional  resemblance  in  the  form  or  sound  of  words  which  are  nearly  re- 
lated to  each  other  in  a  sentence.  The  frequent  occnrrence  of  this  figure  in 
Isaiah  is  beyond  a  doubt ;  bnt  the  number  of  the  instances  has  been  extra- 
vagantly multiplied ;  in  some  cases,  it  would  almost  seem,  for  the  purpose 
of  detracting  from  the  author's  merits  ;  sometimes  with  an  honest  but  mis- 
taken disposition  to  enhance  it.     It  is  an  important  observation  of  Ewald's, 


32  INTRODUCTION. 

that  a  mere  assonance  of  words   is  probably  fortuitous,  except  where  a 
similar  relation  can  be  traced  between  the  thoughts  which  they  express. 
Tlie  truth  in  reference  to  this  and  many  other  kindred  topics,  can  be  ascer- 
tained only  in  the  way  proposed  above,  /.  e.  by  a  due  regard  to  the  matter 
and  the  manner  of  each  passage  in  itself  considered.     This  discriminating 
process  necessarily  involves  a  scrupulous  avoidance  of  two  opposite  extremes, 
which  have,  at  different  periods,  and  in  some  cases  simultaneously,  done 
much  to  pervert  and  hinder  the  interpretation  of  the  book  before  us.     The 
first  extreme,  particularly  prevalent  in  earlier  times,  is  that  of  understand- 
ing the  most  highly  wrought  descriptions,  the  most  vivid  imagery,  the  boldest 
personifications,  as  mere  prose.     This  is  especially  exemplified  in  the  irra- 
tional and  tasteless  manner  of  expounding  apologues  and  parables  by  many 
of  the  older  writers,  who  insist  on  giving  a  specific  sense  to  circumstances 
which  are  significant  only  as  parts  of  one  harmonious  whole.     The  other 
extreme,  of  which  we  have  already  traced  the  origin,  is  that  of  turning 
elevated  prose  diversified  by  bursts  of  poetry,  into  a  regular  poem  or  series 
of  poems,  technically  so  considered,  and  subjecting  them  as  such  to  all  the 
tests  and  rules  of  classical  poetry,  and  even  to  the  canons  of  its  versification. 
To  expound  Isaiah  without  any  reference  to  the  perpetual  recurrence  of 
antitheses  and  other  parallel  constructions,  would  be  now  a  proof  of  utter 
incapacity.     Far  more  indulgence  would  be  probably  extended  to  the  no  less 
extravagant  but  much  less  antiquated  error  of  seeking  perfect  parallels  in 
every  sentence,  torturing  the  plain  sense  into  forced  conformity  with  this 
imaginary  standard,  altering  the  text  to  suit  it,  and  in  short  converting  a 
natural  and  unstudied  form,  in  which  the  Hebrew  mind  expressed  itself 
without  regard  to  rules  or  systems,  into  a  rigorous  scholastic  scheme  of 
prosody.     The  recurrence  of  a  certain  theme,  refrain,  or  burden  at  nearly 
equal  intervals — a  structure  natural  and  common  in  the  elevated  prose  of 
various  nations,  for  example  in  the  sermons  of  the  great  French  preachers — • 
may  be  very  properly  compared  to  the  strophical  arrangements  of  the  Greek 
dramatic  style.     But  when,  instead  of  an  illustrative  comparison,  the  pas- 
sacres  thus  marked  are  gravely  classed  as  real  strophes  and  antistrophes,  and 
formally  distributed  among  imaginary  choruses  of  Prophets,  Jews,  and  so 
forth,  this  pedantic  affectation  of  confounding  Hebrew  prophecies  with  Greek 
plays,  becomes  chargeable  with  tvastefid  and  ridiculous  excess.     It  can  only 
be  regarded  as  a  natural  and  necessary  consequence  of  this  overstrained 
analogy  between  things  which  occasionally  coincide  in  form,  that  some  of 
the  most  recent  German  critics  do  not  hesitate  to  strike  whole  verses  from 
the  text  of  Isaiah,  on  the  ground  that  they  cannot  be  genuine  because  they 
make  the  strophes  unequal,  and  that  one  of  them  winds  up  a  comparison 
between  prophetic  and  dramatic  poetry  with  several  pages  of  imagery,  far- 
fetched or  fortuitous  coincidences,  both  of  thoughts  and  words,  between 
the  writings  of  Isaiah  and  the  Eumenides  of  ^Eschylus.     The  golden  mean 
between  these  hurtful  and  irrational  extremes  appears  to  lie  in  the  assiduous 
observance  of  the  true  poetical  ingredients  of  Isaiah's  style,  both  in  them- 
selves and  in  their  various  combinations,  with  a  rigid  abstinence  from  all 
scholastic  and  pedantic  theories  of  Hebrew  poetry,  and  all  peculiar  forms 
and  methods  which  have  sprung  from  them  or  tend  to  their  promotion. 

Under  this  last  description  may  be  properly  included  the  fantastic  and 
injurious  mode  of  printing  most  translations  of  Isaiah  since  the  days  of 
Lowth,  in  lines  analogous  to  those  of  classical  and  modern  verse.  This 
arrangement,  into  which  the  good  taste  of  the  Bishop  was  betrayed  by  a  na- 
tural but  overweening  zeal  for  his  supposed  discovery  of  rhythm  or  measure 


INTRODUCTION.  83 

in  the  Hebrew  prophets,  and  which  the  bad  taste  of  succeeding  writers  bids 
fair  to  perpetuate,  is  open  to  a  number  of  objections.  In  the  first  place,  it 
proceeds  upon  a  false  or  at  least  exaggerated  supposition,  that  Isaiah  wrote 
in  what  we  are  accustomed  to  call  verse.  If  the  predominance  of  parallel 
constructions  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  this  mode  of  printing,  then  it  might  be 
adopted  with  propriety  in  many  works  which  all  the  world  regard  as  prose, 
in  various  parts  at  least  of  Seneca,  Augustine,  Larochefoucauld,  Pascal, 
Johnson,  and  even  Macaulay.  The  extent  to  which  it  might  be  carried  is 
exemplified  by  Bishop  Jebb's  ingenious  effort  to  extend  Lowth's  system  to  the 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  in  doing  which  he  actually  prints  long  extracts 
from  the  Gospels  in  the  form  of  Lowth's  Isaiah.  Another  proof  of  the  un- 
soundness of  the  theory,  when  carried  thus  far,  is  the  want  of  unity  among 
the  various  practitioners,  in  Germany  and  England,  with  respect  to  the  divi- 
sion and  arrangement  of  the  clauses,  the  regard  due  to  the  masoretic  accents, 
and  the  rhythmical  principle  on  which  the  whole  must  after  all  depend.  Be- 
tween some  specimens  of  this  mode  of  typography  there  seems  to  be  scarcely 
any  thing  in  common  but  the  uneven  termination  of  the  lines.  A  tliird 
objection  to  this  mode  of  printing  is  the  fact,  which  any  correct  eye  and  ear 
may  bring  to  an  experimental  test,  that  so  far  from  enhancing  the  effect  of 
the  peculiar  construction  of  Isaiah's  sentences,  it  greatly  mars  it,  and  converts 
a  numerous  prose  into  the  blankest  of  all  blank  verse,  by  exciting  expecta- 
tions which  of  course  cannot  be  realized,  suggesting  the  idea  of  a  poetical 
metre  in  the  strict  sense,  and  then  thwarting  it  by  consecutions  wholly 
inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  prosody,  however  sonorous 
or  euphonic  in  themselves.  In  England  and  America,  this  modern  fashion 
seems  to  be  already  an  established  usage,  and  is  even  pushed  so  far  as  to 
require  quotations  from  certain  parts  of  Scripture  to  be  printed  like  poetical 
extracts  in  a  small  type  and  in  lines  by  themselves,  a  usage  which  we  may 
expect  to  see  extended  to  the  rest  of  the  Bible  on  the  principles  of  Jebb. 
In  Germany,  the  younger  and  inferior  wi-iters  appear  still  enamom-ed  of  this 
wonderful  discovery ;  but  some  of  their  more  eminent  interpreters,  above 
the  common  average  in  taste,  exhibit  symptoms  of  reaction.  Ewald  con- 
tents himself  with  marking  the  divisions  of  the  sentences  and  clauses  after 
the  manner  of  bars  in  music,  while  De  Wette,  in  his  excellent  translation  of 
the  Bible,  prints  the  whole  like  prose.  This  is  the  more  significant  because 
DeWette,  in  his  introduction  to  the  Psalms,  had  carried  out  Lowth's  system 
of  parallelisms  in  detail,  with  gi-eater  minuteness  and  precision  than  any  pre- 
ceding writer.  In  the  preface  to  his  Bible,  he  speaks  of  the  arrangement  of 
the  Hebrew  distichs  in  distinct  lines,  as  of  value  only  to  the  Hebrew  scholar, 
while  Ewald  says  expressly  that  the  modern  custom  violates  the  ancient 
usage,  and  mistakes  for  poetry  the  mixed  or  intermediate  prophetic  style. 
Partly  for  these  and  other  reasons  of  a  kindred  nature,  founded  on  what  I 
believe  to  be  the  true  characteristics  of  Isaiah's  style,  partly  in  order  to  save 
room  for  more  important  matters  than  the  marking  of  divisions,  which  the 
simplest  reader  even  of  a  version  can  distinguish  for  himself  so  far  as  they 
have  any  real  value,  the  translation  of  Isaiah  will  be  found  in  this  work 
printed  as  prose,  and  in  the  closest  union  with  the  exposition.  This  is  the 
method  which  has  been  successfully  pursued  by  several  judicious  German 
writers  of  the  present  day,  especially  by  Hengstenberg,  as  well  in  his  Christ- 
ology  as  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  perhaps  as  a  matter  of  conveni- 
ence merely,  but  it  may  be  also  with  regard  to  some  of  the  considerations 
which  have  just  been  stated.    With  respect  to  the  translation  in  the  present 

VOL.  I.  c 


34  INTRODUCTION. 

volume,  this  aiTangement  is  moreover  rendered  necessary  by  the  relation 
which  it  is  intended  to  sustain  to  the  exegetical  matter  which  accompanies 
it.  No  attempt  has  here  been  made  to  give  a  new  translation  of  the  book, 
complete  in  itself,  and  suited  for  continuous  perusal.  The  translation  is 
part  and  parcel  of  the  commentary,  closely  incorporated  with  it,  and  ia 
some  degree  inseparable  from  it.  After  the  study  of  a  passage  with  the  aid 
here  furnished,  it  may  no  doubt  be  again  read  with  advantage  in  this  version, 
for  the  sake  of  which  it  has  been  not  only  printed  in  a  difterent  type,  but 
generally  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  paragraph.  This  explanation  seems 
to  be  required,  as  the  whole  form  and  manner  of  the  version  have  been 
modified  by  this  design.  If  meant  for  separate  continuous  perusal,  it  must 
of  course  have  been  so  constructed  as  to  be  easily  intelligible  by  itself; 
whereas  a  version  introduced  as  a  text  or  basis  of  immediate  exposition, 
admitted  of  a  closer  approximation  to  the  idiomatic  fonn  of  the  original, 
with  all  its  occasional  obscurity  and  harshness,  than  would  probably  have 
been  endui-ed  by  readers  of  refined  taste  in  an  independent  version. 

To  this  account  of  the  precise  relation  which  the  version  of  Isaiah  in 
this  volume  bears  to  the  accompanying  exposition,  may  be  added  a  brief 
statement  of  the  twofold  object  which  the  whole  work  is  intended  to  accom- 
plish, namely,  a  correct  interpretation  and  a  condensed  historical  sj-nopsis 
of  opinions  with  respect  to  it.  The  arduous  task  here  undertaken  is  to 
aid  the  reader  in  determining  the  sense,  not  only  by  my  own  suggestions, 
but  by  those  of  others.  This  historical  element  has  been  introduced 
both  as  a  means  of  exegetical  improvement,  and  for  its  own  sake,  as  an 
interesting  chapter  of  the  history  of  opinion  on  a  highly  important  sub- 
ject. In  order  to  appreciate  the  particular  results  of  this  historical  analy- 
sis, it  will  be  proper  to  give  some  account  of  the  materials  employed.  A 
brief  and  general  sketch  of  the  progress  of  opinion  and  of  gi'adual  changes 
in  the  method  of  interpretation  having  been  previously  given  in  a  different 
connection,  it  will  only  be  necessary  here  to  add  a  chronological  enume- 
ration of  the  works  which  have  exerted  the  most  lasting  and  extensive 
influence  on  the  interpretation  of  Isaiah. 

The  first  place  in  this  enumeration  is  of  course  due  to  the  Ancient 
Versions,  and  among  these  to  the  Greek  translation  commonly  called 
the  Septuagint,  from  the  old  tradition  of  its  having  been  produced  by 
seventy-two  Jews  at  Alexandria  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus. 
The  additional  circumstances,  such  as  the  translation  of  the  whole  law 
by  each  man  separately,  and  their  entire  agreement  afterwards,  are  not 
found  in  the  oldest  authorities,  and  are  now  rejected  as  mere  fables.  It 
is  even  a  matter  of  dispute  among  the  learned,  whether  the  whole  of  this 
translation  was  executed  at  once  or  by  degrees,  by  few  or  many  writers, 
for  the  use  of  the  synagogues  in  Egj'pt,  or  as  a  mere  literary  enterprise. 
Against  the  unity  of  the  translation  is  the  ditferent  character  of  the 
version  in  diflerent  parts.  The  Pentateuch  is  commonly  regarded  as  the 
best,  and  Daniel  as  the  worst.  The  version  of  Isaiah  is  intermediate  be- 
ween  these.  It  is  important  as  the  record  of  an  ancient  exegetical 
tradition,  and  on  account  of  the  use  made  of  it  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  wTiter  shews  a  special  acquaintance  with  the  usages  and  products 
of  Egj'pt,  but  is  grammatically  very  inexact,  and  governed  in  translation 
by  no  settled  principle.  Hence  he  abounds  in  needless  paraphrases  and 
additions,  euphemistic  variations,  and  allusions  to  opinions  and  events  of 
later  times,  although  the  number  of  these  has  been  exaggerated  by  some 
critics.     The  Hebrew  text  used  by  this  translator  seems  to  have  been  the 


INTRODUCTION.  35 

one  now  extant,  but  \Yithout  the  masoretic  points.  The  seeming  variations 
used  by  Houbigant  and  Lowth  as  means  of  textual  correction,  are  most 
probably  the  mere  result  of  ignorance  or  inadvertence.  The  extreme 
opinions  formerly  maintained  in  reference  to  this  version  have  been  gradu- 
ally exchanged  for  a  more  moderate  and  discriminating  estimate,  acknow- 
ledging its  use  in  many  cases  of  difficult  interpretation,  but  denying  its 
paramount  authority'  in  any.  Besides  the  frequent  citation  of  the  Septua- 
gint,  occasional  reference  will  be  made  to  the  other  old  Greek  versions  of 
Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion,  fragments  of  which  have  been  pre- 
served by  early  writers.  Of  these  interpreters,  Aquila  is  commonly  sup- 
posed to  have  been  distinguished  by  his  slavish  adherence  to  the  letter  of 
the  Hebrew,  Symmachus  by  freedom  and  a  greater  regard  to  the  Greek 
idiom,  while  Theodotion  stood  in  these  respects  between  them. 

Next  to  these  versions  stands  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase  or  Targum  of 
Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel,  the  date  of  which  is  much  disputed,  but  assigned 
by  a  majority  of  modern  critics  to  the  time  of  Christ,  or  that  immediately 
preceding.  It  derives  its  value  partly  from  its  high  repute  and  influence 
among  the  Jews,  partly  from  its  intrinsic  character,  as  being  on  the  whole 
a  skilful  and  correct  translation  into  a  cognate  dialect,  although  disfigured 
like  the  Septuagint  by  many  arbitrary  explanations,  by  additions  to  the 
text,  and  by  allusions  to  the  usages  and  doctrines  of  the  later  Jews.  Its 
critical  as  well  as  exegetical  adherence  to  the  masoretic  text  is  much  more 
close  than  that  of  the  oldest  Greek  translator. 

The  ancient  Syriac  version,  commonly  called  the  Peshito,  on  account  of 
its  simplicity  and  fidelity,  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  extant.  Its  precise 
date  is  unlaiown,  but  it  appears  to  have  been  looked  upon  as  ancient,  and 
occasionally  needing  explanation,  even  in  the  days  of  Ephrem  Syrus.  It 
has  been  ascribed  by  ditferent  critics  to  a  Jewish  and  a  Christian  writer, 
but  the  latter  supposition  is  the  best  sustained,  both  by  external  and  inter- 
nal evidence.  The  opinion  of  some  writers,  as  to  the  use  made  by  this 
translator  of  the  Targum  and  Septuagint,  appears  to  be  regarded  now  as 
groundless,  or  at  least  exaggerated.  This  version  as  a  whole,  is  charac- 
terised by  great  exactness  and  a  close  adherence  to  the  original  expression, 
rendered  easy  by  the  near  affinity  of  Syriac  and  Hebrew. 

The  Vulgate  or  common  Latin  version  of  Isaiah,  regarded  as  authentic 
in  the  Church  of  Rome,  was  executed  by  Jerome  about  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century,  and  afterwards  substituted  for  the  old  Latin  version, 
'commonly  called  Itala,  in  use  before,  of  which  only  fragments  are  now 
extant.  This  version,  notwithstanding  many  errors  and  absurd  interpre- 
tations, is  on  the  whole  a  valuable  record  of  ancient  exegetical  tradition, 
and  of  the  fruit  of  Jerome's  oriental  studies.  Its  influence  on  modern 
exegesis,  more  especially  within  the  Church  of  Rome,  has  of  course  been 
very  extensive. 

In  these  four  versions  we  possess  what  may  be  called  the  exegetical  tra- 
dition of  the  Jewish  Synagogue,  the  Latin  Church,  the  Greek  Church,  and 
the  Sp'ian  Church  in  all  its  branches.  This,  in  addition  to  their  mere  an- 
tiquity, entitles  them  to  a  consideration  which  cannot  be  claimed  by  other 
versions,  even  though  intrinsically  more  correct.  At  the  same  time  let  it 
be  observed,  that  in  addition  to  the  original  defects  of  these  translations, 
their  text  is  no  doubt  greatly  corrupted,  having  never  been  subjected  to  any 
such  conservative  process  as  the  Masora  or  critical  tradition  of  the  Jews. 
This  fact  alone  shews  the  folly  of  attempting  to  ascribe  to  either  of  these 
versions  a  traditional  authority  superior  to  that  of  the  Hebrew  text.     From 


86  INTRODUCTION. 

these  direct  and  primary  versions,  many  mediate  or  secondary  ones  were 
formed  in  early  times,  the  exegetical  authority  of  which  is  naturally  far 
inferior,  although  they  arc  occasionally  useful  in  determining  the  text  of 
their  originals,  and  even  in  explaining  them,  while  still  more  rarely  they 
exhibit  independent  and  remarkable  interpretations  of  the  Hebrew  text. 
To  some  of  these  mediate  versions,  there  will  be  found  occasional  refer- 
ences in  the  present  work,  especially  to  the  Arabic  version  of  the  Septua- 
gint,  made  at  Alexandria,  and  printed  in  the  third  volume  of  the  London 
Polyglot.  A  still  more  frequent  mention  will  be  made  of  an  immediate 
Arabic  version  by  the  celebrated  Jewish  teacher  and  gi-ammarian  of  the 
tenth  century,  Saadias  Gaon,  whose  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  is  found 
in  the  same  Polyglot,  although  his  verison  of  Isaiah  was  not  brought  to 
light  till  near  the  end  of  the  last  century.  Both  in  its  merits  and  defects, 
it  resembles  the  more  ancient  versions,  but  approaches  still  more  closely  to 
the  exegesis  of  the  rabbins.  The  occasional  citations  of  this  version  are 
derived  from  other  writers,  and  particularly  from  Gesenius. 

Next  to  the  Ancient  Versions  may  be  named  the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers 
who  have  written  on  Isaiah.  Besides  Origen  and  others,  whose  interpreta- 
tions have  been  wholly  or  in  a  great  measure  lost,  there  are  still  extant 
those  of  Eusebius,  CjtII  of  Alexandria,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and  Pro- 
copius,  on  the  whole  or  part  of  the  Septuagint  version  of  Isaiah.  These 
are  valuable,  not  so  much  from  any  direct  aid  which  they  afford  in  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  Hebrew  text,  as  for  the  light  which  they  throw  upon  the 
prevalent  theories  of  interpretation  at  a  remote  period,  and  especially  upon 
the  allegorical  and  mystical  method  of  expounding  the  Old  Testament,  of 
which  Origen,  if  not  the  Inventor,  was  the  nlost  successful  champion  and 
practitioner.  Jerome,  the  only  Latin  Father  who  has  WTitten  on  Isaiah, 
while  he  has  some  defects  and  faults  in  common  with  the  Greek  expound- 
ers, has  the  great  advantage  of  direct  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew  text, 
and  with  the  Jewish  method  of  explaining  it.  The  good  eflects  of  this 
superior  knowledge,  and  of  his  untiring  diligence,  are  greatly  neutralised  by 
haste  and  inadvertence,  by  a  want  of  consistency  and  settled  principles,  and 
by  a  general  defect  of  judgment.  The  only  Fathers,  of  whose  expositions 
a  direct  use  will  be  made  in  the  present  work,  are  Chrysostom  and  Jerome, 
and  of  these  only  in  the  earlier  chapters.  All  further  references  of  the 
same  kind  are  derived  from  other  commentaries. 

Of  the  Rabbins,  several  are  carefully  compared  and  often  quoted.  These 
are  Solomon  Jarchi,  noted  for  his  close  adherence  to  the  Targum,  and  the 
Jewish  tradition  ;  Aben  Ezra,  for  his  independent  rationalistic  views  and 
philological  acuteness ;  David  Kimchi,  for  his  learning  and  good  sense,  and 
for  his  frequent  reference  to  older  writers.  He  often  cites,  among  others, 
his  brother  Moses,  and  his  father,  Joseph  Kimchi.  The  Michlal  Jophi  of 
Solomon  Ben  Melech,  with  the  additional  notes  of  Jacob  Abendana,  Is 
chiefly  a  selection  of  the  best  rabbinical  interpretations,  particularly  those 
of  David  Kimchi.  The  opinions  of  Abarbcnel  and  other  rabbins  are  occa- 
sionally cited  on  the  authority  of  other  writers. 

Of  the  licformers,  the  two  greatest  are  kept  constantly  in  view  through- 
out the  exposition.  Luther's  translation  will  be  always  valued,  not  only 
for  its  author's  sake,  but  for  its  own.  Though  often  inexact  and  paraphras- 
tical,  it  almost  always  gives  the  true  sense,  and  often  gives  it  with  a  vigour 
and  felicity  of  phrase  never  attained  In  like  degree  by  the  more  accurate 
and  learned  versions  of  the  present  day.  Calvin  still  towers  above  all  in- 
terpreters, in  large  commanding  views  of  revelation  in  its  whole  connection. 


INTRODUCTION.  37 

with  extraordinary  insight  into  the  logical  relations  of  a  passage,  even 
where  its  individual  expressions  were  not  fully  understood.  These  quali- 
ties, together  with  his  fixed  belief  of  fundamental  doctrines,  his  eminent 
soundness  of  judgment,  and  his  freedom  fi-om  all  tendency  to  paradox, 
pedantic  affectation,  or  fanciful  conceit,  place  him  more  completely  on  a 
level  with  the  very  best  interpreters  of  our  day,  than  almost  any  intervening 
^vriter.  Of  the  other  Reformers,  only  occasional  citations  will  be  met  with, 
such  as  Zwingli,  (Ecolampadius,  and  Fagius. 

As  a  representative  of  the  old  school  of  orthodox  interpreters,  we  may 
take  the  annotated  version  of  Junius  and  Tremellius,  distinguished  by 
learning,  ingenuity,  and  exegetical  acumen,  but  disfigured  by  unnatural 
and  forced  constructions,  in  which  the  Hebrew  idiom  is  often  sacrificed  to 
some  paradoxical  novelty.  Less  fi'equent  reference  will  be  made  to  other 
-^Titers  of  the  same  school  and  period,  who  were  not  accessible  directly,  or 
whose  influence  on  later  writers  has  been  less  considerable. 

The  honours  due  to  the  original  and  independent  founder  of  a  school 
may  be  justly  claimed  by  John  Cocceius,  whose  opinions  gave  occasion  to 
protracted  controversies  in  the  Church  of  Holland.  The  description 
usually  given  of  him,  that  he  finds  Christ  everywhere  in  the  Old  Testament, 
is  hardly  expressive  of  his  peculiar  character,  as  set  forth  in  his  work  upon 
Isaiah.  A  more  exact  description  would  be,  that  he  finds  the  Church  and 
the  events  of  Church  history  throughout  the  prophecies,  not  as  a  mystical 
or  secondary  meaning,  but  as  the  proper  and  direct  one.  Of  this  system 
many  striking  specimens  will  be  presented  in  the  exposition. 

The  description  of  Cocceius,  which  has  been  already  quoted,  is  commonly 
accompanied  by  one  of  Grotius,  as  his  exegetical  opposite,  who  finds  Christ 
nowhere.  Here  again  the  portrait  is  by  no  means  an  exact  one,  at  least  as 
he  appears  in  his  brief  notes  on  Isaiah.  He  probably  professes  to  find 
Christ  predicted  there  as  often  as  Cocceius  does,  but  with  this  difi"erence, 
that  Grotius  finds  him  always  hidden  under  types,  the  lower  or  immediate 
sense  of  which  is  to  be  sought  as  near  as  may  be  to  the  date  of  the  predic- 
tion. A  comparison  between  these  two  eminent  writers  is  enough  to  shew 
the  incorrectness  of  the  common  notion,  that  the  hypothesis  of  types  and 
double  senses  is  peculiar  to  the  stricter  theologians  of  the  old  school,  and 
the  rejection  of  them  characteristic  of  the  more  liberal  interpreters.  Coc- 
ceius seldom  resorts  to  the  assumption  of  a  double  sense,  while  Grotius 
seldom  recognises  Christ  as  a  subject  of  prophecy,  except  where  he  can  in- 
stitute a  typical  relation.  The  grand  objection  to  the  exegesis  of  the  latter, 
as  exemplified  in  this  book,  is  its  superficial  character  and  the  sceptical  ten- 
dencies which  it  betrays.  Its  shining  merits  are  ingenious  combinations, 
happy  conjecture,  and  abundant  illustration  from  the  Greek  and  Roman 
classics.  The  nearest  approach  to  him,  in  all  these  qualities,  without  the 
least  appearance  of  dependence,  imitation,  or  collusion,  is  found  in  John 
Le  Clerc,  more  commonly  called  Clericus.  The  likeness  is  the  more  exact, 
because  neither  he  nor  Grotius  has  done  justice  to  his  own  capacity  and 
reputation  in  interpreting  Isaiah. 

The  first  complete  exposition  of  Isaiah  is  the  great  work  of  Campegius 
Yitringa,  Professor  at  Franeker,  originally  published  in  1714.  Of  the  pre- 
ceding commentaries,  every  one  perhaps  may  be  described  as  holding  up 
some  one  side  of  the  subject,  while  the  others  are  neglected.  But  in  this 
work  are  collected  all  the  materials  which  at  that  time  were  accessible,  not 
in  an  undigested  state,  but  thoroughly  incorporated  and  arranged  with  a 
degree  of  judgment,  skill,  and  taste,  not  easily  surpassed.     It  is  besides 


38  1NTH0DUCTI0N, 

distinguished  by  a  candour,  dignity,  and  zeal  for  truth,  without  the  least 
admixture  of  acrimonious  bigotry,  which  have  secured  for  it  and  for  its 
author  the  esteem  of  all  succeeding  writers  who  have  read  it,  of  whatever 
school  or  party.  So  complete  is  Vitringa's  exposition  even  now,  tliat 
nothing  more  would  be  required  to  supply  the  public  wants  but  the  addi- 
tional results  of  more  profound  and  extensive  philological  investigation 
during  the  last  century,  were  it  not  for  two  defects  which  the  woik,  with  all 
its  vai'ied  and  transcendent  merit,  docs  exhibit.  The  first  is  a  want  of 
condensation,  a  prolixity,  which,  although  not  without  advantages  to  read- 
ers who  have  leisure  to  secure  them,  is  entirely  uusuitcd  to  the  tastes  and 
habits  of  the  present  age.  The  other  is  too  strong  a  loaning  to  the  mystical 
and  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  plainest  prophecies,  arising  from  a  mis- 
taken deference  for  the  old  exegctical  canon,  that  the  prophecies  must  be 
made  to  mean  as  much  as  possible.  To  this  must  be  added  the  erroneous 
hypothesis,  not  yet  exploded,  that  every  prophecy  must  be  specific,  and 
must  have  its  fulfilment  in  a  certain  period  of  history,  to  determine  which 
recourse  must  frequently  be  had  to  fanciful  or  forced  interpretation. 

Nearly  contemporary  with  Yitringa  was  the  learned  German  Pietist,  John 
Henry  Michaelis,  Professor  at  Halle,  who,  in  conjunction  with  his  brother, 
published  there  in  1720  a  Hebrew  Bible  with  marginal  annotations.  Those 
on  the  first  part  of  Isaiah  are  by  no  means  equal  to  the  notes  of  C.  B. 
Michaelis  on  the  Minor  Prophets  in  the  same  volume.  The  former  are 
more  meagre,  and  contain  less  independent  exposition,  leaning  chiefly  upon 
some  preceding  writers,  and  especially  Sebastian  Schmidt.  These  notes, 
however,  have  considerable  value  on  account  of  their  references  to  parallel 
passages,  less  numerous  than  those  of  many  other  writers,  but  selected  with 
great  care,  and  with  a.  constant  view  to  the  elucidation  of  the  text.  Occa- 
sionally also  an  original  interpretation  here  presents  itself.  The  whole  work 
is  characterised  by  orthodox  belief  and  a  devout  spirit. 

Independently  of  both  these  works,  though  some  years  later,  appeai'ed 
the  Exposition  of  Isaiah  by  John  Gill,  a  Baptist  minister  in  London. 
Though  designed  for  the  doctrinal  and  practical  improvement  of  the  English 
reader,  it  is  still  distinguished  from  other  books  of  that  class  by  its  erudi- 
tion in  a  single  province,  that  of  talmudic  and  rabbinic  literature.  In  this 
department  Gill  draws  directly  from  his  own  resources,  which  are  here 
extensive,  while  in  other  matters  he  contents  himself  with  gathering  and 
combining,  often  whimsically,  the  opinions  of  preceding  writers,  and  espe- 
cially of  those  contained  in  the  Critici  Sacri  and  in  Pool's  Synopsis.  His 
original  suggestions  are  but  few  and  generally  founded  on  his  own  peculiar 
views  of  the  Apocalypse,  not  as  an  independent  prophecy,  but  as  a  key  to 
those  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Before  either  of  the  works  last  mentioned,  and  nearly,  contemporaiy 
with  Vitringa,  appeared  a  Commentary  on  Isaiah  by  Dr  William  Lowth, 
prebendaiy  of  Winchester,  which  is  usually  printed  with  his  other  exposi- 
tions of  the  Prophets,  as  a  part  of  Bishop  Patrick's  Commentary  on  the 
Bible.  The  work  on  Isaiah  has  exerted  little  influence  on  later  writers, 
the  less  perhaps  because  eclipsed  by  the  brilliant  success  of  the  Translation, 
published,  more  than  half  a  century  afterwards,  by  the  author's  son,  Robert 
Lowth,  successively  Bishop  of  Limerick,  St  David's,  Oxford,  and  London, 
universally  acknowledged  to  be  one  of  the  most  accomplished  scholars  and 
elegant  writers  of  his  age  or  nation.  The  influence  of  Lowth's  Isaiah  has 
already  been  described,  so  far  as  it  can  be  regarded  as  injurious  to  the  cause 
of  sound  interpretation  or  enlightened  criticism.     Its  good  efi'ect  has  been 


INTRODUCTION.  89 

to  raise  the  estimation  of  Isaiah  as  a  writer  of  extraordinary  genius,  and  to 
introduce  a  method  of  expounding  him,  more  in  accordance  with  the  princi- 
ples of  taste,  than  some  adopted  hy  preceding  -wTiters.  Besides  this  work 
upon  Isaiah,  he  contributed  to  this  end  by  his  lectures,  as  Professor  of  Poetry 
at  Oxford,  de  Sacra  Poesi  Hehraorum,  which  have  been  fi-equently  repub- 
lished on  the  Continent,  and  still  exert  a  salutary  influence  on  the  German 
critics.  In  his  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text,  he  follows  the  exploded 
system  of  Cappellus,  Houbigant,  and  others,  who  assumed  the  masoretic 
text  to  be  as  faulty  as  it  could  be  without  losing  its  identity,  and  seem  to 
make  it  the  great  object  of  their  criticism  to  change  it  as  extensively  as  pos- 
sible. Many  of  Lowth's  favourite  interpretations,  being  founded  upon  critical 
conjecture,  are  now  worthless.  The  style  of  his  English  version,  which  ex- 
cited universal  admiration  when  it  first  appeared,  has,  in  the  course  of  nearly 
seventy  years,  become  less  pleasing  to  the  cultivated  ear,  partly  because  a 
taste  has  been  revived  for  that  antique  simplicity  which  Lowth's  contempo- 
raries looked  upon  as  barbarous,  and  of  which  a  far  superior  specimen  is 
famished  in  the  common  version.  Among  Lowth's  greatest  merits,  in  the 
exposition  and  illustration  of  Isaiah,  must  be  mentioned  his  familiarity  with 
classical  models,  often  suggesting  admirable  parallels,  and  his  just  views, 
ai-ising  from  a  highly  cultivated  taste,  in  reference  to  the  structure  of  the 
prophecies,  and  the  true  import  of  prophetic  imagery. 

Almost  simultaneous  with  the  first  appearance  of  Lowth's  Isaiah  was  the 
publication  of  a  German  version,  with  iN'otes  for  the  Unlearned,  by  John 
David  iMichaelis  (a  nephew  of  John  Henry  before  mentioned)  Professor  at 
Gcittingen,  and  for  many  years  the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  German 
Orientalists.  His  interpretations  in  this  work  are  often  novel  and  ingenious, 
but  as  often  paradoxical  and  fanciful.  His  version,  although  frequently 
felicitous,  is  marred  by  a  perpetual  affectation  of  colloquial  and  modern 
phraseology,  for  which  he  sometimes  apologises  on  the  ground  that  the 
original  expression  would  not  have  sounded  well  in  German.  He  agrees 
with  Lowth  in  his  contempt  for  the  masoretic  text,  which  he  is  constantly 
attempting  to  correct ;  but  is  far  below  him  in  refinement  of  taste  and  in  a 
just  appreciation  of  the  literary  merits  of  his  author.  With  respect  to  more 
important  matters,  he  may  be  said  to  occupy  the  turning-point  between  the 
old  and  new  school  of  interpreters.  While  on  the  one  hand,  he  retains  the 
customary  forms  of  speech  and,  at  least  negatively,  recognises  the  divine 
authority  and  inspiration  of  the  Prophet,  he  carries  his  affectation  of  inde- 
pendence and  free-thinking,  in  the  details  of  his  interpretation,  so  far,  that 
the  transition  appears  natural  and  easy  to  the  avowed  unbelief  of  his  pupils 
and  successors.  Besides  the  one  already  mentioned,  occasional  reference 
is  made  to  other  works  of  the  same  author. 

The  German  edition  of  Lowth's  Isaiah,  with  additional  notes  by  Koppe, 
a  colleague  of  iMichaelis  at  Guttingen,  deserves  attention,  as  the  work  in 
which  the  extravagant  doctrines  of  the  modern  criticism  with  respect  to  the 
unity,  integrity,  and  genuineness  of  the  prophecies,  were  fii'st  propounded  and 
applied  to  the  writings  of  Isaiah.  The  opposite  doctrines  were  maintained, 
in  all  their  strictness,  by  a  contemporary  Swiss  Professor,  Kocher,  a  disciple 
and  adherent  of  the  orthodox  Dutch  school,  in  a  book  expressly  written 
against  Lowth. 

Passing  over  the  comparatively  unimportant  works  of  Vogel,  Cube, 
Hensler,  and  the  annotated  Latin  versions  of  Dathe  and  Doederlein,  occa- 
sionally cited  in  the  present  volume,  we  may  mention  as  the  next  important 
link  in  the  catena  of  interpretation,   the  famous   Scholia  of  the  younger 


40  INTRODUCTION. 

Rosenmiiller,  for  many  years  Oriental  Professor  at  Leipzig.  The  part  re- 
lating to  Isaiah  appeared  first  in  1791  ;  but  the  publication  and  republica- 
tion of  the  several  parts  extend  through  a  period  of  more  than  forty  years. 
As  a  whole,  the  work  is  distingnishod  by  a  critical  acquaintance  both  with 
Hebrew  and  the  cognate  dialects,  and  an  industrious  use  of  the  ancient 
versions,  the  rabbinical  interpreters,  and  the  later  WTitcrs,  particularly 
Grotius  and  Vitringa,  whole  paragraphs  from  whom  are  often  copied  almost 
verbatim  and  without  express  acknowledgment.  From  its  comprehensive 
plan  and  the  resources  of  the  writer,  this  work  may  be  considered  as  an  adap- 
tation of  Vitringa  to  the  circumstances  of  a  later  period,  including,  however, 
an  entire  change  of  exegetical  and  doctrinal  opinions.  Without  any  of  the 
eager  zeal  and  party-spirit,  which  occasioned  the  excesses  of  Koppe  and 
Eichhorn,  Rosenmiiller  equally  repudiates  the  docti-ine  of  prophetic  inspira- 
tion in  the  strict  sense,  and  rejects  whatever  would  imply  or  involve  it. 
The  unsoundness  of  his  principles  in  this  respect  has  given  less  otience  and 
alarm  to  readers  of  a  different  school,  because  accompanied  by  so  much 
calmness  and  apparent  candour,  sometimes  amounting  to  a  neutral  apathy, 
no  more  conducive  to  correct  results  than  the  opposite  extreme  of  partiality 
and  prejudice.  This  very  spirit  of  indiifercnce,  together  with  the  plan  of 
compilation  upon  which  the  Scholia  are  constructed,  added  perhaps  to  an 
originarinfirmity  of  judgment,  make  the  author's  own  opinions  and  conclu- 
sions the  least  valuable  part  of  this  extensive  and  laborious  work.  In  the 
abridged  edition,  which  appeared  not  long  before  his  death  (1835),  many 
opinions  of  Gesenius  are  adopted,  some  of  which  Gesenius  in  the  mean  time 
had  himself  abandoned.  The  acknowledgment  of  Messianic  prophecies, 
which  Rosenmiiller,  in  his  later  writings,  seems  to  make,  does  not  extend  to 
prophecies  of  Christ,  but  merely  to  vague  and  for  the  most  part  groundless 
expectations  of  a  Messiah  by  the  ancient  prophets. 

An  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  interpretation  of  Isaiah  is  commonly  sup- 
posed to  be  marked  by  the  appearance  of  the  Philological,  Critical,  and  Histo- 
rical Commentary  of  Gesenius  (Leipzig,  1821).  This  distinction  is  not  founded 
upon  any  new  principle  or  even  method  of  interpretation  which  the  author 
introduced,  but  on  his  great  celebrity,  authority,  and  influence,  as  a  gram- 
marian and  lexicographer.  Nothing  is  more  characteristic  of  the  work  than 
the  extreme  predilection  of  the  writer  for  the  purely  philological  and  archae- 
ological portions  of  his  task,  and  the  disproportionate  amount  of  space  and 
labour  lavished  on  them.  The  evidence  of  learning  and  acuteness  thus 
afforded  cannot  be  questioned,  but  it  is  often  furnished  at  the  cost  of  other 
more  important  qualities.  The  ablest  portions  of  the  work  have  sometimes 
the  appearance  of  excursus  or  detached  disquisitions  upon  certain  questions 
of  antiquities  or  lexicography.  Even  in  this  chosen  field,  successful  as 
Gesenius  has  been,  later  writers  have  detected  some  infirmities  and  failures. 
Of  these  the  most  important  is  the  needless  multiplication  of  distinct  senses 
and  the  gratuitous  attenuation  of  the  meaning  in  some  words  of  common 
occurrence.  The  merit  of  Gesenius  consists  much  more  in  diligent  investi- 
gation and  perspicuous  arrangement  than  in  a  masterly  application  of  the 
principles  established  and  exemplified  in  the  best  Greek  lexicons.  His 
proneness  to  mistake  distinct  applications  of  a  word  and  accessory  ideas 
suggested  by  the  context,  for  different  meanings  of  the  word  itself,  is  recog- 
nised in  the  occasional  correction  of  the  fault  by  his  American  translator  (see 
for  example  Heb.  Lex.  p.  148),  to  whom  the  public  would  have  been  in- 
debted for  a  much  more  frequent  use  of  the  same  method.  If  any  apology 
is  needed  for  the  frequent  deviations,  in   the  following  exposition,   from 


.  INTRODUCTION.  41 

Gesenius's  decisions,  it  is  afforded  by  the  rule  which  he  professes  to  have 
followed  in  his  own  use  of  the  cognate  dialects :  ultra  lexica  sapere. 
(Preface  to  Isaiah,  p.  vi.)  With  respect  to  candour  and  impartiality, 
Gesenius  occupies  the  same  ground  with  Rosenmiiller,  that  is  to  say,  he  is 
above  suspicion  as  to  any  question  not  comiected,  more  or  less  directly,  with 
his  fundamental  error,  that  there  can  be  no  prophetic  foi-esight.  Another 
point  of  similarity  between  them  is  their  seeming  hesitancy  and  instability 
of  judgment,  as  exhibited  in  frequent  changes  of  opinion  upon  minor  points, 
without  a  statement  of  suflScient  reasons.  The  many  variations  which  may 
be  traced  in  the  writings  of  Gesenius,  from  his  early  Lexicons  and  Commen- 
tary on  Isaiah  to  his  gi-eat  Thesaurus,  are  no  doubt  proofs  of  intellectual 
progress  and  untiring  diligence  ;  but  it  is  still  true,  that  in  many  cases  oppo- 
site conclusions  seem  to  have  been  drawn  from  precisely  the  same  premises. 
The  Commentary  on  Isaiah  never  reappeared,  but  the  accompanying  version 
was  reprinted  with  a  few  notes,  in  1829.  This  translation  is  a  spirited 
and  faithful  reproduction  of  the  sense  of  the  original,  and  for  the  most  part 
of  its  characteristic  form,  but  not  without  unnecessary  paraphrases  and  gra- 
tuitous departures  from  the  Hebrew  idiom.  In  these  respects,  and  in  sim- 
plicity of  diction,  it  has  been  much  improved  by  De  Wette,  whose  translation 
of  Isaiah  (contained  in  his  version  of  the  Bible,  Heidelberg,  1839)  is 
avowedly  founded  upon  that  of  Gesenius.  The  same  relation  to  the  Com- 
mentary is  sustained  by  Maurer's  notes  for  students  (in  the  first  volume  of 
his  Commentarius  Criticus  in  Vet.  Test.  Leipzig,  1835),  which  exhibits  in  a 
clear  and  compact  form  the  substance  of  Gesenius,  with  occasional  speci- 
mens of  independent  and  ingenious  exposition. 

A  very  different  position  is  assumed  by  Hitzig,  whose  work  upon  Isaiah 
(Heidelberg,  1833)  seems  intended  to  refute  that  of  Gesenius  wherever  a 
dissent  was  possible,  always  excepting  the  sacred  fundamental  principle  of 
unbelief  in  which  they  are  united.  This  polemical  design  of  Hitzig's  work 
has  led  to  many  strained  and  paradoxical  interpretations,  but  at  the  same 
time  to  a  remarkable  display  of  exegetical  invention  and  philological  acute- 
ness,  both  in  the  appUcation  of  the  principles  of  Ewald's  Grammar  where 
it  varies  from  Gesenius,  and  in  original  solutions  of  grammatical  and  other 
problems.  In  some  points  Hitzig  may  be  said  to  have  receded  to  the 
ground  of  Eichhorn,  as  for  instance  in  the  wildness  of  his  critical  conjec- 
tures, not  so  much  in  reference  to  words  or  letters  as  to  larger  passages, 
and  also  in  his  leaning  to  the  old  idea  of  predictions  e.v  eventu,  or  historical 
allusions  clothed  in  a  prophetical  costume.  The  metaphysical  obscurity  of 
Hitzig's  style,  in  certain  cases,  may  be  either  the  result  of  individual  pecu- 
liarity, or  symptomatic  of  the  general  progress  in  the  German  mind  from 
common-sense  rationalism  or  deism  to  the  more  transcendental  forms  of 
unbelief.  Another  characteristic  of  this  writer  is  his  undisguised  contempt, 
if  not  for  Isaiah  in  particular,  for  Judaism  and  its  faith  in  general.  In  point 
of  taste,  he  is  remarkable  at  once  for  high  pretensions  and  for  gross  defects. 

Hendewerk's  commentary  on  Isaiah,  (Konigsberg,  vol.  i.  1838,  vol.  ii. 
1843)  though  indicative  of  scholarship  and  talent,  has  a  less  marked  and 
independent  character  than  that  of  Hitzig,  and  exhibits  in  a  great  degree 
the  faults  and  merits  of  a  juvenile  performance.  The  author's  reading 
seems  to  have  been  limited  to  modern  -writers,  and  the  controversial  attitude 
which  he  is  constantly  assuming  with  respect  to  Hengstenberg  or  Hitzig, 
while  it  makes  his  exposition  less  intelligible,  unless  compared  with  that 
of  his  opponents,  also  impairs  the  reader's  confidence  in  his  impartiality 
and  candour.     His  original  suggestions  are  in  many  cases  striking  and 


'42  INTUODVCTION. 

in  some  truly  valuable,   as  will  appear  from  the  examples  cited  in  the 
exposition. 

A  place  is  due,  in  this  part  of  the  chronological  succession,  to  two  works 
on  Isaiah  in  the  English  language.  The  first  is  by  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes 
of  Philadelphia  (3  vols.  8vo,  Boston,  1840),  well  known  by  previous  pub- 
lications on  the  Gospels  and  Epistles,  and  by  a  later  work  on  Job.  His 
exposition  of  Isaiah  comprehends  a  large  part  of  the  valuable  substance  of 
Vitringa,  Rosenmiiller,  and  Gesenius,  with  occasional  reference  to  the  older 
WTiters,  as  contained  in  Pool's  Synopsis  and  the  Critici  Sacri.  The  great 
fault  of  the  work  is  not  its  want  of  matter,  but  of  matter  well  digested  and 
condensed.  Particular  and  even  disproportionate  attention  has  been  paid  to 
archaeological  illustration,  especially  as  furnished  by  the  modern  travellers. 
Practical  observations  are  admitted,  but  without  sufficient  uniformity  or  any 
settled  method.  The  author's  views  of  inspiration  in  general,  and  of  the 
inspiration  of  Isaiah  in  particular,  are  sound,  but  not  entirely  consistent  with 
the  deference  occasionally  paid  to  neological  interpreters,  in  cases  where 
their  judgments  are,  in  fact  though  not  in  form,  determined  by  a  false  as- 
sumption, which  no  one  more  decidedly  rejects  than  Mr  Barnes.  The  New 
Translation  which  accompanies  the  Commentar}',  seems  to  be  wholly  inde- 
pendent of  it,  and  can  hardly  be  considered  an  improvement,  either  on  the 
common  version,  or  on  that  of  Lowth. 

Some  of  the  same  remarks  are  applicable  fo  the  work  of  Dr  Henderson 
(London,  1840),  in  which  there  are  appearances  of  greater  haste  and  less 
laborious  effort,  but  at  the  same  time  of  a  more  extended  reading,  and  a 
more  independent  exegetical  judgment.  The  English  author,  though  fami- 
liar with  the  latest  German  writers  who  preceded  him,  is  not  deterred  by 
their  example  or  authority  from  the  avowal  of  his  doctrinal  belief,  or  from  a 
proper  use  of  analogy  in  the  interpretation  of  the  prophet.  Further  descrip- 
tion of  thcf  e  two  works  is  rendered  unnecessary  by  the  frequency  with  which 
they  are  quoted  or  referred  to  in  the  Commentary. 

Ewald's  exposition  of  Isaiah,  contained  in  his  collective  work  upon  the 
Hebrew  Prophets  (Stuttgart,  1841),  derives  great  authority  from  his  acknow- 
ledged eminence  in  Germany,  as  a  profound  philosophical  grammarian.  His 
attention  has  been  given  almost  exclusively  to  the  chronological  arrangement 
of  the  parts  and  the  translation  of  the  text.  The  latter  has  gi*eat  value, 
not  only  as  containing  the  results  of  Ewald's  philological  researches,  but 
also  on  account  of  its  intrinsic  qualities,  and  more  especially  its  faithful 
exhibition  of  the  form  of  the  original  in  its  simplicity.  In  this  respect  it  is 
a  great  advance  on  all  preceding  versions.  The  Commentary  is  extremely 
meagre,  and  remarkable,  like  most  of  Ewald's  writings,  for  the  absence  of 
all  reference  to  other  modern  writers  or  opinions.  The  liberties  taken  with 
the  text,  though  not  very  numerous,  are  sometimes  very  violent  and  arbi- 
trary. The  sweeping  criticism,  on  which  liis  chronological  arrangement 
rests,  will  be  considered  in  another  place.  From  the  rationalistic  school  of 
Rosenmiiller  and  Gesenius,  Ewald  differs  iti  I'cgarding  Isaiah  as  inspired, 
which  admission  really  extends,  however,  only  to  a  kiad  of  vague,  poetical, 
anticipation,  wholly  exclusive  of  distinct  prophetic  foresight  of  the  distant 
future,  in  rejecting  which,  as  a  thing  impossible  or  not  susceptible  of  proof, 
he  coincides  with  the  preceding  writers. 

Umbreit's  practical  Commentary  on  Isaiah  (Hamburg,  1842),  is  little 
more  than  a  declamatory  paraphrase,  composed  in  what  an  English  i-eader 
would  regard  as  very  questionable  taste.  The  real  value  of  the  work  con- 
sists in -a  translation  of  Isaiah,  and  occasional  notes  on  different  questions 


INTRODUCTION.  45 

of  philology  and  criticism.  On  such  points  the  author  coincides  for  the 
most  part  with  Gesenius,  while  in  his  general  views  of  prophecy  he  seems 
to  approach  nearer  to  Ewald,  with  whom  he  frequently  concurs  in  making 
that  a  vague  anticipation  which  the  other  writers  take  as  a  specific  pro- 
phecy. At  the  same  time,  he  difters  from  this  whole  class  of  interpreters, 
in  frequently  alluding  to  the  Saviour  and  the  new  dispensation  as  the  sub- 
jects of  prediction,  but  in  what  sense  it  is  hard  to  ascertain,  the  rather  as 
he  practically  holds  the  modern  doctrine,  that  distinct  prediction  of  the 
distant  future  is  suflicieut  to  disprove  the  genuineness  of  a  passage. 

Knobel's  Isaiah  (Leipzig,  1843),  is  exceedingly  convenient  as  a  condensed 
synopsis  of  the  principal  interpretations.  In  the  expression  of  his  own  views, 
the  author  shews  his  strict  adherence  to  the  modern  school  of  criticism  and 
exegesis.  His  critical  decisions,  with  respect  to  some  portions  of  the  book, 
are  very  arbitrary,  and  the  detailed  proofs,  by  which  he  sustains  them,  in  a 
high  degree  extravagant.  In  rejecting  the  hypothesis  of  inspiration,  and  in 
asserting  the  mere  human  character  and  origin  of  the  prophecies,  he  is  un- 
commonly explicit  and  decided,  both  in  this  work  and  in  one  which  he  had 
previously  published  upon  prophecy  in  general.  On  the  whole,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  good  exegetical  suggestions,  he  may  be  looked  upon  as 
having  retrograded  to  the  ground  of  the  old  neologists  from  that  assumed 
by  Ewald  and  Umbreit. 

It  is  gratifying  to  be  able  to  conclude  the  list  of  German  writers  with  a 
few  names,  belonging  to  a  very  different  school,  and  connected  with  a 
powerful  reaction  in  favour  of  old  principles,  as  being  perfectly  consistent 
with  the  valuable  fruits  of  late  improvements  and  discoveries.  The  way  of 
this  important  movement,  so  far  as  Isaiah  is  concerned,  was  opened,  not 
by  regular  interpreters  of  this  book,  but  by  Hengstenberg  in  his  Christo- 
logy  (1829)  followed  by  Kleinert  in  his  volume  on  the  genuineness  of 
Isaiah's  prophecy  (1829),  and  still  more  recently  by  Hiivernick  in  his 
Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  (1844).  An  application  of  the  same 
essential  principles  to  the  direct  interpretation  of  Isaiah  has  been  made  by 
Drechsler,  Professor  at  Erlangen,  the  first  volume  of  whose  Commentary 
(Erlangen,  1845)  reached  me  too  late  to  allow  the  present  use  of  any  part 
of  it  except  the  Introduction,  to  which  reference  is  made  below.  Besides 
the  exegetical  works  already  mentioned,  occasional  references  will  be  found 
to  others,  illustrative  of  certain  passages  or  certain  topics.  As  most  of 
these  are  too  well  known  to  need  description,  it  will  be  sufficient  here  to 
name,  as  authorities  iti  natural  history  and  geography,  the  Hierozoicon  of 
Bochart  and  the  Biblical  Researches  of  Robinson  and  Smith. 

It  remains  now  to  speak  of  the  arrangement  and  divisions  of  the  book. 
The  detailed  examination  of  particular  questions  under  this  head  will 
be  found  in  the  course  of  the  exposition,  and  for  the  most  part  in  the 
special  introduction  to  the  several  chapters.  All  that  is  here  intended 
is  a  general  statement  of  the  case,  preparatory  to  these  more  minute 
discussions.  The  progress  of  opinion  upon  this  part  of  the  subject 
has  been  closely  connected  with  the  succession  of  exegetical  and  critical 
hypotheses  already  mentioned.  The  same  extremes,  reactions,  compi'o- 
mises,  may  be  traced  substantially  in  both.  The  older  WTiters  commonly 
assumed  that  the  book  was  arranged  in  chronological  order  by  the  author 
himself.  Thus  Jerome  says  expressly,  that  the  prophecies  belonging  to 
the  four  reigns  follow  one  another  regularly,  without  mixture  or  confusion. 
J.  H.  Michaelis  regards  the  fii-st  verse  of  the  first,  sixth,  and  seventh 
chapters,  and  the  twenty-eighth  verse  of  the  foui'teenth  chapter,  as  the 


44  IXTRODUCTION. 

dividing  marks  of  the  four  reigns.  This  supposition  of  a  strict  chrono- 
logical arrangement,  although  rather  taken  for  granted  than  determined  by 
investigation,  is  In^  no  means  so  absurd  as  some  have  represented  it.  It 
rests  on  immemorial  tradition,  and  the  analogy  of  the  other  books,  the  few 
exceptions  tending  rather  to  confirm  the  rule.  The  principal  objections  to 
it  are,  that  the  first  chapter  is  evidently  later  than  the  second  ;  that  the 
sixth,  containing  the  account  of  Isaiah's  ordination  to  his  office,  must  be 
the  first  in  point  of  date  ;  and  that  the  seventeenth  chapter  relates  to  the 
first  years  of  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  whereas  chap.  xiv.  28  is  assigned  to  the 
year  in  which  he  died. 

These  objections,  though  by  no  means  insurmountable,  as  will  be  seen 
hereafter,  led  Vitringa  to  relinquish  the  hypothesis  of  strict  chronological 
arrangement  by  the  author  himself,  for  that  of  arrangement  by  another 
hand  (perhaps  by  the  men  of  Hezekiah  mentioned  Prov.  xxv.  1),  in  the 
order  of  sul)jccts,  those  discourses  being  placed  together  whose  contents  are 
most  alike.  He  accordingly  divides  Isaiah  into  five  books,  after  the  manner 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  Psalter,  the  first  (chaps,  i.-xii.)  containing  prophecies 
du'ected  against  Judah  and  Israel,  the  second  (chaps,  xiii.-xxiii.)  against 
certain  foreign  powers,  the  third  (chaps,  xxiv.-xxxv.)  against  the  enemies 
and  unworthy  members  of  the  church,  the  fourth  (chaps,  xl.-xlviii.)  relating 
chiefly  to  the  Babylonish  exile  and  deliverance  from  it,  the  fifth  (chaps. 
xlix.-lx\'i.)  to  the  person  and  reign  of  the  Messiah,  while  chaps,  xxxvi.- 
xxxix.  are  distinguished  from  the  rest  as  being  purely  historical.  The  titles 
in  chap.  i.  1,  ii.  1,  vii.  1,  xiii.  1,  xiv  28,  &c.,  he  regards  as  genuine, 
except  that  the  names  of  the  four  kings  were  added  to  the  first  by  the  com- 
piler, in  order  to  convert  what  was  at  first  the  title  of  the  first  chapter  only 
into  a  general  description  of  the  whole  book. 

This  ingenious  hypothesis  still  leaves  it  unexplained  why  certain  series 
were  separated  from  each  other,  for  example  why  chaps,  xiii.-xxiii.  are  in- 
terposed between  chaps,  i.— xii.  and  chaps,  xxiv.-xxxv.  This  led  Koppe, 
whom  Gesenius  describes  as  the  pioneer  of  the  modern  criticism,  to  reject 
that  part  of  Vitringa's  theory  which  supposes  the  book  to  have  received  its 
present  form  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  while  he  carries  out  to  an  absurd 
extreme  the  general  hypothesis  of  compilation  and  re-arrangement  by  a 
later  hand.  According  to  Koppe  and  Augnsti,  the  book,  as  we  now  have 
it,  is  in  perfect  confusion,  and  its  actual  arrangement  wholly  without  autho- 
rity. To  confirm  and  explain  this,  Eichhoni  and  Bcrtholdt  assume  the 
existence  of  several  distinct  collections  of  Isaiah's  writings  to  each  of  which 
additions  were  gradually  made,  until  the  whole  assumed  its  present  form. 

The  same  general  view  is  taken  of  the  matter  by  Hitzig  and  Ewald,  but 
with  this  distinction,  that  the  former  thinks  the  framework  or  sub-stratum 
of  the  original  collections  still  remains,  and  needs  only  to  be  freed  from 
subsequent  interpolations,  while  the  latter  sticks  more  closely  to  the  earlier 
idea,  that  the  whole  is  in  confusion,  partly  as  he  supposes  from  the  loss  of 
many  prophecies  no  longer  extant,  and  can  be  even  partially  restored  to  its 
original  condition,  only  by  critically  reconstructing  it  under  the  guidance  of 
internal  evidence.  Ewald  accordingly  abandons  the  traditional  arrange- 
ment altogether,  and  exhibits  the  disjecta  membra  in  an  order  of  his  osra. 
The  critical  value  of  the  diagnosis,  which  controls  this  process,  may  be 
estimated  from  a  single  principle,  assumed  if  not  avowed  throughout  it, 
namely,  that  passages  which  treat  of  the  same  subject,  or  resemble  one 
another  strongly  in  expression,  must  be  placed  together  as  component  parts 
of  one  continuous  composition.     The  absurdity  of  this  assumption  might 


INTRODUCTION.  45 

be  rendered  palpable  by  simply  applying  it  to  any  classical  or  modern 
author,  who  has  practised  a  variety  of  styles,  but  with  a  frequent  recur- 
rence of  the  same  ideas,  for  example,  Horace,  Goethe,  Moore,  or  Byron. 
The  practical  value  of  the  method  may  be  best  shewn  by  a  comparative 
statement  of  its  actual  results  in  the  hands  of  two  contemporar)-  writers, 
Ewald  and  Hendewerk,  both  of  whom  have  followed  this  eccentric  method 
in  the  printing  of  their  Commentaries,  to  the  great  annoyance  of  the  reader, 
even  when  assisted  by  an  index.  Without  attending  to  the  larger  divisions 
or  cijcles  introduced  by  either,  a  simple  exhibition  of  the  order  in  which  the 
first  chapters  are  arranged  by  these  two  writers,  will  be  amply  sufficient  for 
our  present  purpose. 

Hendewerk's  arrangement  is  as  follows  : — Chap,  vi. ;  chaps,  i.-v. ;  chap, 
vii.  (vers.  1-9) ;  chap.  xvii.  (vers.  1-14)  ;  chap.  vii.  (vers  10-25)  ;  chaps, 
viii.  ix.  ;  chap.  x.  (vers.  1-27)  ;  chap.  xiv.  (vers.  24-27)  ;  chap.  x.  (vers. 
28-34)  ;  chaps,  xi.  xii ;  chap.  xiv.  (vers.  28-32)  ;  chaps,  xv.  xvi,  ;  chaps, 
xviii.  xix.  ;  chap.  xxi.  (vers.  11-17)  ;  chap,  xxiii. ;  chaps,  xxviii.  xxix.  ; 
chap.  XX.  ;  chaps,  xxxi.  xxxii.  ;  chap,  xxii.  ;  chap,  xxxiii.  ;  chaps,  xxx-sd.- 
xxxix  ;  chaps,  xxiv.-xxvii.  ;  chaps,  xxxiv.  xxxv,  ;  chap,  xiii.  ;  chap.  xiv. 
(vers.  1-23)  ;  chap.  xxi.  (vers.  1-10) ;  chaps,  xl.-lxvi. 

Ewald's  aiTangement  is  as  follows  : — Chap.  vi. ;  chaps,  ii.-iv.  ;  chap. 
V.  (vers.  1-25) ;  chap.  ix.  (vers.  7-20)  ;  chap.  x.  (vers.  1-4)  ;  chap.  v. 
(vers.  26-30) ;  chap.  xvii.  (vers.  1-11)  ;  chaps,  vii.  viii.  ;  chap.  ix.  (vers. 
1-G)  ;  chap.  xiv.  (vers.  25-32) ;  chaps,  xv,  xvi.  ;  chap.  xxi.  (vers.  11-17) ; 
chap,  xxiii.  ;  chap.  i.  ;  chap.  xxii. ;  chaps,  xxviii. -xxxii. ;  chap.  xx.  ;  chap. 
X.  (vers.  5-34);  chap.  xi.  ;  chap.  xvii.  (vers.  12-18) ;  chap,  xviii.;  chap, 
xiv.  (vers.  24-27) ;  chap,  xxxiii. ;  chap,  xxxvii.  (vers.  22-35)  ;  chap.  xix.  ; 
chap.  xxi.  (vers.  1-10) ;  chap.  xiii.  ;  chap,  xiv,  (vers,  1-23) ;  chaps,  xl.- 
Ix-^d.  ;  chaps,  xxxiv,  xxxv,;  chap,  xxiv.  ;  chap.  xxv.  (vers.  G-11) ;  chap, 
XXV.  (vers.  1-5)  ;  chap.  xxv.  (ver,  12) ;  chaps,  xxvi.  xxvii.  ;  chap,  xii,  is 
rejected  as  of  later  origin,  but  without  determining  its  date.  These  ar- 
rangements, and  particularly  that  of  Ewald,  may  be  reckoned  not  only  the 
latest  but  the  last  achievement  of  the  higher  criticism.  "  The  force  of 
nature  can  no  further  go."  We  need  look  for  no  invention  beyond  this, 
unless  it  be  that  of  reading  the  book  backwards,  or  shuffling  the  chapters 
like  a  pack  of  cards. 

Long  before  this,  Gesenius  had  recoiled  from  the  extremes  to  which  the 
higher  criticism  tended,  and  attempted  to  occupy  a  middle  ground,  by 
blending  the  hj'pothesis  of  J,  H.  Michaelis  and  Vitringa,  or  in  other  words 
assuming  a  regard  both  to  chronological  order  and  to  the  affinity  of  sub- 
jects, at  the  same  time  holding  fast  to  the  favourite  idea  of  successive  ad- 
ditions and  distinct  compilations.  He  accordingly  assumes  four  parts  or 
books.  The  first  (chap,  i.-xii.)  consists  of  prophecies  belonging  to  the 
earliest  period  of  Isaiah's  ministry,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  interpola- 
tions. The  sixth  chapter  should  stand  first,  according  to  the  Jewish 
tradition  as  recorded  by  Jarchi  and  Aben  Ezra,  The  first  chapter  is 
somewhat  later  than  the  second,  third,  and  fom-th.  The  seventh,  though 
authentic,  was  probably  not  written  by  Isaiah.  The  eleventh  and  twelfth 
may  also  be  spurious,  but  were  early  added  to  the  tenth.  This  book  he 
regards  as  the  original  collection,  and  the  first  verse  as  its  original  title  or 
inscription.  The  second  book  (chap,  xiii. -xxiii.)  consists  of  prophecies 
against  foreign  nations,  excepting  chap,  xxii.,  which  he  supposes  to  have 
found  its  way  here  from  having  been  early  joined  with  chap  xxi.  A  charac- 
teristic feature  of  this  book  is  the  use  of  burden,  as  a  title  or  inscription, 


46  INTRODUCTION. 

wliicli  ho  thinks  may  be  certainly  ascribed  to  the  compiler.  The  third 
book  (chap,  xxiv.-xxxv.)  contains  a  scries  of  genuine  prophecies  belonging 
to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  (chaps,  xxviii.-xxxiii.),  with  two  other  series  of 
later  date,  placed  by  the  hand  of  a  compiler  at  the  beginning  (chaps,  xxiv.- 
xxvii.)  and  the  end  (chaps  xxxiv.  xxxv.)  of  this  collection,  while  it  was 
fmiher  augmented  by  a  historical  appendix  (chaps,  xxxvi.-xxxix.),  in  which 
Isaiah  makes  a  prominent  figure.  The  fourth  and  last  book  (chaps,  xl.- 
xlvi.),  as  Gesenius  thinks,  was  added  to  the  others  long  after  the  captivity. 

Here,  as  in  other  cases  previously  mentioned,  Gesenius  differs  from  his 
predecessors  in  the  liUjhcr  ciiticism,  only  in  degi'ce,  refusing  to  go  with 
them  iu  the  application^of  their  principles,  but  holding  fast  the  principles 
themselves.  If,  on  the  one  hand,  he  is  right  in  assuming,  upon  mere  con- 
jecture, several  different  collections  of  the  writings  of  Isaiah  formed  succes- 
sively, and  in  rejecting,  upon  mere  internal  evidence,  the  parts  which  do 
not  suit  his  purpose  or  his  theory,  then  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  give  any 
definite  reason  for  refusing  our  assent  to  the  more  thorough  application  of 
the  same  process  by  the  bolder  hand  of  Ewald.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
Gesenius  is  correct  in  drawing  back  from  the  legitimate  results  of  such  a 
theorj',  then  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  find  a  safe  or  definite  position, 
without  receding  further  and  relinquishing  the  theor}'  itself.  This  addi- 
tional reaction  has  not  failed  to  take  place  in  the  progress  of  the  contro- 
versy. It  is  most  distinctly  marked  and  ably  justified  in  Havernick's 
Introduction  to  Isaiah,  where  the  author  lays  it  down,  not  as  a  makeshift 
or  a  desperate  return  to  old  opinions  without  ground  or  reason,  but  as 
the  natural  result  of  philological  and  critical  induction,  that  the  writings 
of  Isaiah,  as  now  extant,  form  a  compact,  homogeneous,  and  well-ordered 
whole,  proceeding,  in  the  main,  if  not  in  all  its  parts,  from  the  hand  of 
the  original  author.  Whoever  has  been  called  to  work  his  way  through 
the  extravagant  and  endless  theories  of  the  'higher  criticism,'  without  those 
early  prepossessions  in  its  favour  which  grow  with  the  growth  of  almost 
every  German  scholar,  far  from  finding  this  new  doctrine  strange  or  arbi- 
trary, must  experience  a  feeling  of  relief  at  thus  landing  from  the  ocean  of 
conjecture  on  the  terra  firma  of  historical  tradition,  analogical  reasoning, 
and  common  sense.  The  advantages  of  such  a  ground  can  be  appreciated 
far  more  justly  after  such  experience  than  before  it,  because  then  there 
miffht  be  a  misgiving  lest  some  one  of  the  many  possibilities  proposed 
as  substitutes  for  immemorial  tradition  might  prove  true  ;  but  now  the 
reader,  having  found  by  actual  experiment,  not  only  that  these  ways  do  not 
lead  him  right,  but  that  they  lead  him  nowhere,  falls  back  with  strong 
assurance,  not  by  any  means  upon  all  the  minor  articles  of  the  ancient 
creed,  which  he  is  still  bound  and  determined  to  subject  to  critical  investi- 
gation, but  on  the  general  presumption  which  exists  in  all  such  cases, 
that  the  truth  of  what  is  obvious  to  common  sense  and  has  been  held 
from  the  beginning,  instead  of  being  the  exception  is  the  rule,  to  which  the 
flaws,  that  may  be  really  discovered  by  a  microscopic  criticism,  are  mere 
exceptions. 

That  Havernick  especially  has  not  been  governed  by  a  love  of  novelty 
or  opposition,  is  apparent  from  the  fact  of  his  retaining  in  its  substance 
Gesenius's  division  and  arrangement  of  the  book,  while  he  rejects  the 
gratuitous  assumptions  held  by  that  eminent  interpreter  in  common  with 
his  predecessors.  According  to  Havernick  the  whole  book  consists  of  five 
connected  but  distinguishable  fjroups,  or  series  of  prophecies.  The  first 
gi-oup  (chaps,  i.-xii.)  contains  Isaiah's  earUest  prophecies,  arranged  in  two 


INTRODUCTION.  47 

scries,  easily  distinguished  by  internal  marks.  The  first  six  chapters  have 
a  general  character,  without  certain  reference  to  any  particular  historical 
occasion,  which  accounts  for  the  endless  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
precise  date  of  their  composition.  The  remaining  six  have  reference  to 
particular  occasions,  which  are  not  left  to  conjecture  but  distinctly  stated. 
They  embrace  the  principal  events  under  Ahaz,  and  illustrate  the  relation 
of  the  prophet  to  them.  The  sixth  chapter,  though  descriptive  of  the 
prophet's  ordination,  holds  its  proper  place,  as  an  addendum  to  the  fore- 
going prophecies,  designed  to  justify  their  dominant  tone  of  threatening 
and  reproof.  The  second  group  (chaps,  xiii.-xxiii.)  contains  a  series  of 
prophecies  against  certain  foreign  powers,  shewing  the  relation  of  the 
heathen  world  to  the  theocracy,  and  follov*'ed  by  a  sort  of  appendix  (chaps, 
xxiv.-xxvii.),  summing  up  the  foregoing  prophecies  and  shewing  the  results 
of  their  fulfilment  to  the  end  of  time.  He  maintains  the  genuineness  of 
all  the  prophecies  in  this  division  and  the  correctness  of  their  actual  posi- 
tion. The  apparent  exception  in  chap.  xxii.  he  accounts  for,  by  supposing 
that  Judah  is  there  represented  as  reduced  by  gross  iniquity  to  the  condi- 
tion of  a  heathen  state.  Another  explanation,  no  less  natural,  and  more 
complete,  because  it  accounts  for  the  remarkable  prophecy  against  an  in- 
dividual in  the  last  part  of  the  chapter,  is  afi"orded  by  the  supposition,  that 
Judah  is  there  considered  as  subject  to  a  foreign  and  probably  a  heathen 
influence,  viz.  that  of  Shebna.  (See  the  details  under  chap,  xxii.)  Haver- 
nick's  third  group  (chaps,  xxviii.-xxxiii.)  contains  prophecies  relating  to  a 
particular  period  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  with  a  more  general  prospective 
sequel  (chaps,  xxxiv.  xxxv.),  as  in  the  second.  Here  again  he  examines 
and  rejects  the  various  arguments  adduced  by  modern  critics  to  disprove 
the  genuineness  of  certain  parts.  The  fourth  group  (chaps,  xxxvi.-xxxix.) 
describes  in  historical  form  the  influence  exerted  by  the  Prophet  at  a  later 
period  of  the  reign  of  He:iekiah.  Regarding  this  and  the  parallel  part  of 
Second  Kings  as  collat£r.il  derivatives  from  a  historical  writing  of  Isaiah, 
Havernick  is  led  by  the  mention  in  chap,  xxxvii.  38,  of  an  event  which 
happened  after  the  supposed  death  of  Isaiah,  to  ascribe  that  verse  and  the 
insertion  of  these  chapters  to  a  somewhat  later  hand.  He  maintains,  how- 
ever, that  so  far  from  being  inappropriate,  they  constitute  a  necessary  link 
between  the  third  group  and  the  fifth  (chap,  xl.-lxvi.),  in  which  the  whole 
result  of  his  prophetic  ministrations  to  the  end  of  time  is  vividly  depicted. 

The  critical  and  philological  arguments  of  Havernick,  in  this  part  of 
his  work,  are  eminently  learned  and  ingenious,  highly  original  and  yet 
conservative  of  ancient  and  invaluable  truth.  A  reference  to  them  is  the 
more  important  here  because  they  came  into  my  hands  too  late  to  influence 
the  expositions  of  the  present  volume,  the  coincidence  between  them  as  to 
principle,  if  not  in  all  particular  conclusions,  being  only  the  more  satisfac- 
tory and  striking  upon  that  account.  The  same  remark  applies,  in  some 
degree  to  Drechsler's  Introduction,  which  may  be  considered  as  a  further 
movement  in  the  same  direction,  not  occasioned  by  the  other,  but  the  fruit 
of  independent  labour  in  the  same  field  and  under  the  same  influence.  It 
is  certainly  an  interesting  and  instructive  fact,  that  in  two  such  cases,  the 
conviction  of  the  unity,  integrity,  and  uncorrupted  genuineness  of  the  book 
before  us,  even  as  to  its  arrangement  and  the  nexus  of  the  parts,  should 
have  been  reached  without  collusion,  by  a  thorough  sifting  of  the  very 
arguments  alleged  against  it  by  the  ablest  critics  of  the  past  and  present 
generation.  Drechsler's  idea  of  Isaiah  as  a  whole  diff'ers  from  Havernick's, 
in  going  further  from  the  modern  theory,  retaining  less  of  its  substratum. 


48  INTRODUCTION. 

the  hypothesis  of  different  collections,  and  ascribing  to  the  book,  as  we 
possess  it,  a  more  absolute  and  perfect  unity.  Drechsler  dismisses  the 
whole  question  with  respect  to  the  precise  date  of  particular  passages,  as 
equally  insoluble  and  unimportant;  directs  attention  to  the  fixct  that  through- 
out the  book  the  only  editor,  compiler,  or  arranger,  of  whom  any  trace  can 
be  discerned,  is  one  who  exercised  the  rights  of  an  author;  draws  from  this 
and  other  marks  of  an  internal  kind,  a  confirmation  of  the  old  opinion,  that 
the  form  and  the  contents  of  the  collection  are,  so  far  as  we  can  hope  to 
ascertain,  from  one  and  the  same  hand  ;  and  thenceforth  assumes  it  as  a 
principle  or  maxim,  that  whatever  may  have  been  the  date  of  any  passage 
as  originally  uttered,  we  have  no  need  or  authority  to  trace  it  further  back 
than  its  reduction  to  its  present  shape  by  the  original  author. 

With  respect  to  the  divisions  of  the  book,  his  theory  may  seem  at  first 
sight  artificial,  but  is  really  distinguished  by  simplicity  as  well  as  ingenuit}'. 
He  sets  out  b_Y  assuming  two  great  crises  or  conjunctures  in  Isaiah's  minis- 
try, about  which  all  his  prophecies  may  be  arranged.  The  first  is  the 
invasion  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  the  second  the  invasion  in  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah.  These  he  regards  as  the  centre  of  two  great  prophetic  schemes 
or  systems,  forming  one  harmonious  whole,  but  between  themselves  dis- 
tinguished by  the  prevalence  of  threatening  and  reproof  in  one,  of  promise 
and  consolation  in  the  other.  To  each  of  these  great  critical  events  in  the 
history  corresponds  a  central  point  or  focus  in  the  prophecy,  from  which  in 
both  directions  we  naay  trace  a  regular  connection  in  the  book,  stretching 
back  into  the  past  and  forward  into  the  future,  in  the  way  of  preparation 
on  the  one  hand  and  completion  on  the  other.  The  focus  of  the  first  gi-eat 
prophetic  scheme  he  fixes  in  the  seventh  chapter,  that  of  the  other  in  the 
thirty-sixth  and  thirty- seventh.  The  sixth  is  a  direct  preparation  for  the 
seventh  ;  the  fifth  for  the  sixth  ;  the  second,  third,  and  fourth,  for  the 
fifth  ;  the  first  is  a  general  introduction  to  the  whole.  Then  on  the  other 
side,  the  promises  and  threatenings  of  the  seventh  chapter  are  repeated, 
amplified,  and  varied,  first  with  respect  to  Judah  and  Israel  in  chaps, 
viii.-xii.,  then  with  respect  to  foreign  powers  in  chaps,  xiii.-xxiii.,  and  lastly 
in  a  general  summing  up  and  application  to  all  times  and  places  in  chaps, 
xxiv.-xxvii.,  which  closes  the  fii'st  system.  The  other  central  prophecy,  in 
chaps,  xxxvi.andxxxvii.,  is  likewise  introduced  by  a  preparatoiy  seriesfchaps. 
xxviii.-xxxv.),  all  relating  to  Sennacherib's  invasion,  and  on  the  other  hand 
carried  out,  first  historically  (chaps,  xxxvii.  xxxix.),  then  prophetically 
(chaps,  xl.-xlvi.)  to  the  end  of  time. 

However  fanqiful  or  German  this  hypothesis  may  seem,  it  cannot  be 
attentively  considered  without  giving  rise  to  this  reflection,  that  a  book 
affording  the  materials  and  conditions  even  for  a  fanciful  device,  of  which 
unity  and  symmetry  are  essential  elements,  cannot  well  be  a  farrago  of  dis- 
cordant parts  produced  at  random  and  combined  by  chance.  The  opposite 
hypothesis,  if  once  assumed,  can  be  applied  with  ease  to  any  case,  however 
clear  the  signs  of  unity  may  be,  for  the  details  of  proof  are  all  involved  in 
the  primary  assumption  ;  but  it  is  not  quite  so  easy  to  maintain  the  hypo- 
thesis of  harmony  where  harmony  does  not  exist.  It  requires  little  inge- 
nuity or  learning  to  discover  and  exaggerate  appearances  of  discord  even 
where  there  is  agreement ;  but  to  create  the  appearance  of  agreement  in 
the  midst  of  discord  is  beyond  the  reach  of  any  sophistry  or  eloquence 
except  the  most  consummate.  The  tnith,  however,  seems ^to  be,  that 
Drechsler's  theory,  however  fanciful  it  may  appear,  especially  as  stated  by 
himself,  is  but  another  exhibition  of  the  truth  maintained  by  Hiivernick,  to 


INTRODUCTION.  49 

wit,  that  the  book  before  us  is,  in  form  as  well  as  substance,  the  original 
and  genuine  production  of  Isaiah. 

The  view  which  has  now  been  taken  of  the  progi-ess  of  opinion,  with 
respect  to  the  arrangement  and  division  of  the  book  before  us,  first  its 
downward  progress  from  a  firm  traditional  belief  to  the  extreme  of  a  lawless 
and  irrational  scepticism,  and  then  its  upward  course  by  dint  of  argument 
to  an  enlightened  and  confirmed  historical  assurance,  makes  it  almost  im- 
possible to  close  without  a  glance  at  the  ulterior  stages  which  may  yet 
remain  of  this  restorative  process.  Considering  the  principle  on  which  it 
has  been  thus  far  carried  on,  the  proved  unsoundness  of  the  contrary  hypo- 
thesis, and  the  analogy  of  all  like  cases,  it  might  plausibly  be  stated,  a^ 
the  probable  result  of  this  return  to  experience  and  common  sense,  that 
men  whose  eyes  have  thus  been  opened  will  eventually  throw  to  the  moles 
and  to  the  bats  the  cherished  figment,  upon  which  a  large  part  of  their 
errors  has  been  built,  to  wit,  the  groundless  assumption,  that  the  sacred 
writings  of  the  Jews  were  passed  from  hand  to  hand  by  private  circulation 
and  transcription,  like  the  Greek  and  Roman  classics,  accidentally  collected 
into  volumes,  mixed  together,  mutilated,  magnified  by  forgery  or  ignorant 
interpolation,  and  at  last  sent  down  to  us,  to  be  the  subject  of  empirical  deci- 
sions without  number  or  agreement.  Or  if  this  be  gone  ah-eady,  it-may  be 
the  next  step  to  discard  the  notion,  not  monopolized  by  any  class  or  school 
of  critics,  that  the  several  parts  of  such  a  book  as  that  before  us  were,  and 
must  have  been,  delivered  as  set  speeches  or  occasional  discourses,  then 
reduced  to  writing  one  by  one,  and  put  together  by  degrees,  or  even  by  a 
later  hand  and  in  a  distant  age.  On  this  gratuitous  assumption  rests  a 
large  part  of  the  most  perplexing  difliculties  which  attend  the  critical  inter- 
pretation of  Isaiah,  and  which  all  would  disappear  if  we  could  see  sufficient 
reason  to  conclude,  that  the  book  is  a  continuous  production  of  a  single 
mind,  at  one  great  effort,  long  protracted,  it  may  be,  but  not  entirely  sus- 
pended, or  renewed  from  time  to  time  upon  occasion.  The  mention  of  dis- 
tinct events  and  dates  no  more  establishes  the  fact  here  questioned,  than 
the  sweep  of  Paul's  chronology,  in  his  epistle  to  the  churches  of  Galatia, 
proves  that  it  was  written  piecemeal  from  the  time  of  his  conversion.  All 
analogy,  both  scriptural  and  general,  without  some  countervailing  reason 
for  believing  otherwise,  would  favour  the  conclusion  that  a  book  like  that 
before  us  was  produced  by  a  continuous  effort.  But  besides  this  negative 
presumption,  we  have  one  distinct  example  of  the  very  thing  proposed,  or 
rather  two,  for  it  is  matter  of  record  that  the  prophet  Jeremiah  twice  re- 
duced to  writing,  by  divine  command,  the  prophecies  of  many  years  (see 
Jer.  xxxvi.  2,  4,  28,  32),  or  rather  of  his  whole  preceding  ministry.  K 
this  be  possible  in  one  case,  it  is  possible  in  others.  If  we  have  no  diffi- 
culty in  supposing  that  Jeremiah's  constant  inspiration  was  sufficient  to 
ensure  the  truth  of  such  a  record,  or  that  he  was  specially  inspired  for  the 
very  purpose,  we  need  have  none  in  supposing  that  Isaiah,  in  the  last  years 
of  his  ministry,  recorded  the  whole  series  of  his  prophecies,  and  left  them 
upon  everlasting  record,  as  we  have  them  now.  To  us  it  matters  little 
whether  he  recalled  exactly  the  precise  words  uttered  upon  each  occasion, 
or  received  by  a  new  revelation  such  a  summary  as  God  was  pleased  to 
substitute  instead  of  it.  Our  concern  is  not  with  prophecies  now  lost, 
whether  written  or  oral,  but  with  those  now  extant  and  recorded /or  our 
learning.  It  is  these,  and  only  these,  that  we  interpret,  it  is  only  these 
that  can  command  our  faith.     The  supposition  now  suggested,  while  it 

VOL.  I.  D 


50  INTROLUCTIOK 

■would  preclude  a  thousand  petty  questions  gendered  by  the  neologicat 
hvpotbesis,  would  also,  when  combined  with  the  traditional  devotion  of  the 
Jew^s  to  the  preservation  of  their  scriptnres,  furnish  a  solid  ground  for  the 
belief,  that  what  Isaiah  WTote  three  thousand  years  ago  we  read  to-day, 
•without  resorting  to  the  needless  supposition  of  a  miracle,  or  shutting  out 
the  possibility  of  minor  deviations  from  the  autograph  in  every  extant 
manuscript.  All  that  we  needed  we  should  have,  to  wit,  a  rational  assur- 
ance that  the  book,  as  a  book,  without  descending  to  enumerate  its 
letters,  is  precisely  what  it  was,  in  form  and  substance,  when  originally 
•written. 

If  this  supposition  were  assumed  as  the  basis  of  our  exposition,  it  would 
materially  modify  its  form,  in  some  respects,  by  putting  an  end  to  the 
accustomed  method  of  division  into  prophecies  with  separate  dates,  and  in- 
troducing the  same  method  which  is  practised  with  respect  to  Paul's  epistles, 
or  the  undivided  prophecies,  like  that  of  Hosea.  The  conventional  division 
into  verses  and  chapters  (the  latter  wholly  modem  and  in  several  instances 
absurd)  might  be  retained  as  a  convenient  mode  of  reference  ;  but  the 
exegetical  division  of  the  first  part  of  Isaiah  would  no  longer  be  historical  or 
critical,  but  merely  analytical  and  logical,  as  in  the  present  universal  mode 
of  dealing  with  the  last  twenty-seven  chapters  of  the  book.  In  the  exposi- 
tion of  the  prophecies  from  chaps,  i.  to  xl.,  the  usual  distinctive  plnn 
has  been  adopted,  partly  in  deference  to  established  custom  and  the 
authority  of  other  writers,  partly  because  the  ideas  just  expressed  were  not 
assumed  a  priori,  as  an  arbitrary  basis  of  interpretation,  but  deduced  from 
it  a  j)ostenori,  as  its  actual  result.  In  the  mean  time,  it  will  be  observed 
that  various  opportunities  have  been  emlraced,  to  check  and  counteract  the 
tendency  to  needless  or  excessive  subdivision. 

The  prophecies  expounded  in  the  first  part  of  the  volume  may  be  con- 
sidered introductory,  in  various  respects,  to  the  remainder  of  the  book,  not 
only  because  earher  in  date,  find  relating  for  the  most  part  to  a  nearer 
futurity,  but  also  as  afibrding  the  only  satisfactory^  data,  upon  which  the 
exposition  of  the  rest  can  be  founded. 


II.  THE  LATER  PROPHECIES,  CHAPS.  XL.-LXYI. 

One  of  the  most  important  functions  of  the  prophet'c  office  was  the  ex- 
position of  the  Law,  that  is  to  say,  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  the  pecnhar 
form  in  which  the  Church  was  organized  until  the  advent  of  Messiah.  This 
inspired  exposition  was  of  absolute  necessity,  in  order  to  prevent  or  to 
correct  mistakes  which  were  constantly  arising,  not  only  from  the  Ihndness 
and  perverscness  of  the  people,  but  from  the  very  nature  of  the  system 
under  which  they  lived.  That  system,  being  temporary  nnd  symbolical, 
•was  necessarily  material,  ceremonial,  and  restrictive  in  its  forms;  as  nothing 
purely  spiritual  could  be  symbolical  or  tvpical  of  other  spiritual  things,  nor 
could  a  catholic  or  free  constitution  have  secured  the  necessary  segregation 
of  the  people  from  all  others  fur  a  temporary  pui-pose. 

The  evils  incident  to  such  a  state  of  things  were  the  same  that  have 
occurred  in  many  other  like  cases,  and  may  all  be  derived  from  the  supc  rior 
influence  of  sensible  objects  on  the  mass  of  men,  and  from  the  consequent 
propensity  to  lose  sipht  of  the  end  in  the  use  of  the  means,  and  to  confound 
the  sign  with  the  thing  signified.  The  precise  fonn  and  degree  of  this 
perversion  no  doubt  varied  with  the  change  of  times  and  circumstances,  and 


INTR  OB  UCTION.  5 1 

a  corresponding  difference  must  have  existed  in  the  action  of  the  Prophets 
who  were  called  to  exert  a  corrective  influence  on  these  abuses. 

In  the  days  of  Hezekiah,  the  national  corruption  had  already  passed 
through  several  phases,  each  of  which  might  still  be  traced  in  its  effects, 
and  none  of  which  had  wholly  vanished.  Sometimes  the  prevailing  tendency 
had  been  to  make  the  ceremonial  form  of  the  Mosaic  worship,  and  its 
consequent  coincidence  in  certain  points  with  the  religions  of  surrounding 
nations,  an  occasion  or  a  pretext  for  adopting  heathen  rites  and  usao-es,  at 
first  as  a  mere  extension  and  enlargement  of  the  ritual  itself,  then  more 
boldly  as  an  arbitrary  mixture  of  heterogeneous  elements,  and  lastly  as  an 
open  and  entire  substitution  of  the  false  for  the  true,  and  of  Baal,  Ashtoreth, 
or  Moloch,  for  Jehovah. 

At  other  times  the  same  corruption  had  assumed  a  less  revolting  form, 
and  been  contented  with  perverting  the  Mosaic  institutions  while  externally 
and  zealously  adhering  to  them.  The  two  points  from  which  this  insidious 
process  of  perversion  set  out  were  the  nature  and  design  of  the  ceremonial 
law,  and  the  relation  of  the  chosen  people  to  the  rest  of  men.  As  to  the 
first,  it  soon  became  a  current  and  at  last  a  fixed  opinion  with  the  mass  of 
irreligious  Jews,  that  the  ritual  acts  of  the  Mosaic  service  had  an  intrinsic 
eflicacy,  or  a  kind  of  magical  effect  upon  the  moral  and  spiritual  state  of  the 
worshipper.  Against  this  error  the  Law  itself  had  partially  provided  by 
occasional  violations  and  suspensions  of  its  own  most  rigorous  demands, 
plainly  implying  that  the  rites  were  not  intrinsically  efiicacious,  but  significant 
of  something  else.  As  a  single  instance  of  this  general  fact  it  mav  be 
mentioned,  that  although  the  sacrifice  of  life  is  everywhere  throughout  the 
ceremonial  law  presented  as  the  symbol  of  atonement,  yet  in  certain  cases, 
where  the  circumstances  of  the  offerer  forbade  an  animal  oblation,  he  was 
suffered  to  present  one  of  a  vegetable  nature,  even  where  the  service  was 
directly  and  exclusively  expiatory ;  a  substitution  wholly  inconsistent  with 
the  doctrine  of  an  intrinsic  virtue  or  a  magical  elfect,  but  perfectly  in 
harmony  with  that  of  a  symbolical  and  typical  design,  in  which  the  uni- 
formity of  the  external  symbol,  although  rigidly  maintained  in  general, 
might  be  dispensed  with  in  a  rare  and  special  case  without  absurdity  or 
inconvenience. 

It  might  easily  be  shewn  that  the  same  corrective  was  provided  by  the 
Law  itself  in  its  occasional  departure  from  its  own  requisitions  as  to  time  and 
place,  and  the  officiating  person  ;  so  that  no  analogy  whatever  really  exists 
between  the  Levitieal  economy,  even  as  expounded  by  itself,  and  the  ritual 
systems  which  in  later  times  have  been  so  confidently  built  upon  it.  But 
the  single  instance  which  has  been  already  cited  will  suffice  to  illustrate  the 
extent  of  the  perversion  which  at  an  early  period  had  taken  root  among  thel 
Jews  as  to  the  real  nature  and  design  of  their  ceremonial  services.  The 
natural  effect  of  such  an  error  on  the  spirit  and  the  morals  is  too  obvious  in 
itself,  and  too  explicitly  recorded  in  the  sacred  history,  to  require  either 
proof  or  illustration. 

On  the  other  great  point,  the  relation  of  the  Jews  to  the  surrounding 
nations,  their  opinions  seem  to  have  become  at  an  early  period  equally 
erroneous.  In  this  as  in  the  other  case,  they  went  wrong  by  a  superficial 
judgment  founded  on  appearances,  by  looking  simply  at  the  means  before 
them,  and  neither  forwards  to  their  end,  nor  backwards  to  their  origin. 
From  the  indigpuiable  facts  of  Israel's  divine  election  as  the  people  of 
Jehovah,  their  extraordinary  preservation  as  such,  and  their  undisturbed  ex- 
clusive possession  of  the  written  word  and  the  accompanying  rites,  they  had 


52  INTRODUCTION. 

drawn  the  natural  but  false  conclusion,  that  this  national  pre-eminence  was 
founded  on  intrinsic  causes,  or  at  least  on  some  original  and  perpetual 
distinction  in  their  favour.  This  led  them  to  repudiate  or  forget  the  funda- 
mental truth  of  their  whole  history,  to  wit,  that  the}'  were  set  apart  and 
kept  apart,  not  for  the  ruin  and  disgrace,  but  for  the  ultimate  benefit  and 
honour  of  the  whole  world,  or  rather  of  the  v.hole  Church  which  was  to  be 
gathered  from  all  nations,  and  of  which  the  ancient  Israel  was  designed  to 
be  the  symbol  and  the  representative.  As  it  had  pleased  God  to  elect  a 
certain  portion  of  mankind  to  everlasting  life  through  Christ,  so  it  pleased 
him  that  until  Christ  came,  this  body  of  elect  ones,  scattered  through  all 
chmes  and  ages,  should  be  represented  by  a  single  nation,  and  that  this 
representative  body  should  be  the  sole  depository  of  divine  truth  and  a 
divinely  instituted  worship  ;  while  the  ultimate  design  of  this  arrangement 
■was  kept  constantly  in  view  by  the  free  access  which  in  all  ages  was  aflforded 
to  the  Gentiles  who  consented  to  embrace  the  true  religion. 

It  is  difficult  indeed  to  understand  how  the  Jews  could  reconcile  the 
immemorial  reception  of  proselytes  from  other  nations,  with  the  dogma  of 
national  superiority  and  exclusive  hereditaiy  right  to  the  divine  favour.  The 
only  solution  of  this  singular  phenomenon  is  furnished  by  continual  recur- 
rence to  the  great  representative  principle  on  which  the  Jewish  Church  was 
organized,  and  which  was  carried  out  not  only  in  the  separation  of  the 
body  as  a  whole  from  other  men,  but  in  the  internal  constitution  of  the 
body  itself,  and  more  especially  in  the  separation  of  a  whole  tribe  from  the 
rest  of  Israel,  and  of  a  single  family  in  that  tribe  from  the  other  Levites, 
and  of  a  single  person  in  that  family,  in  whom  was  finally  concentrated  the 
whole  representation  of  the  Body  on  the  one  hand,  while  on  the  other  ho 
was  a  constituted  type  of  the  Head. 

If  the  Jews  could  have  been  made  to  understand  or  to  remember  that 
their  national  pre-eminence  was  representative,  not  original ;  symbolical, 
not  real ;  provisional,  not  perpetual ;  it  could  never  have  betrayed  them 
into  hatred  or  contempt  of  other  nations,  but  would  rather  have  cherished 
an  enlarged  and  catholic  spirit,  as  it  did  in  the  most  enlightened  ;  an  effect 
which  may  be  clearly  traced  in  the  writings  of  Moses,  David,  and  Isaiah. 
That  view  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation  which  regards  this  Jewish  bigotry  as 
its  genuine  spirit  is  demonstrably  a  false  one.  The  true  spirit  of  the  old 
economy  was  not  indeed  a  latitudinarian  indifference  to  its  institutions,  or  a 
premature  anticipation  of  a  state  of  things  still  future.  It  was  scrupulously 
faithful  even  to  the  temporary  institutions  of  the  ancient  Church  ;  but  while 
it  looked  upon  them  as  obligatory,  it  did  not  look  upon  them  as  perpetual. 
It  obeyed  the  present  requisitions  of  Jehovah,  but  still  looked  forward  to 
something  better.  Hence  the  failure  to  account,  on  any  other  supposition, 
for  the  seeming  contradictions  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  reference  to  the 
ceremonies  of  the  Law.  If  worthless,  w-hy  were  they  so  conscientiously 
obscn-ed  by  the  best  and  wisest  men  ?  If  intrinsicall}-  valuable,  why  are 
they  disparaged  and  almost  repudiated  by  the  same  men  ?  Simply  because 
they  were  neither  worthless  nor  intrinsically  valuable,  but  appointed  tempo- 
rary signs  of  something  to  be  otherwise  revealed  thereafter  ;  so  that  it  was 
equally  impious  and  foolish  to  reject  them  altogether  with  the  sceptic,  and 
to  rest  in  them  for  ever  with  the  formalist. 

It  is  no  less  true,  and  for  exactly  the  same  reason,  that  the  genuine  spirit 
of  the  old  economy  was  equally  adverse  to  all  religious  mixture  with  the 
heathen  or  renunciation  of  the  Jewish  privileges  on  one  hand,  and  to  all 
contracted  national  conceit  and  hatred  of  the  Gentiles  on  the  other.     Yet 


INlTx,  OL  UCTION.  53 

both  these  forms  of  error  had  become  fixed  in  the  Jewish  creed  and  character 
long  before  the  days  of  Hezekiah.  That  they  were  not  universal  even  then, 
we  have  abundant  proof  in  the  Old  Testament.  Even  in  the  worst  of 
times,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  a  portion  of  the  people  held  fast  to  the 
true  doctrine  and  the  true  spirit  of  the  extraordinary  system  under  which 
they  lived.  How  large  this  more  enlightened  party  was  at  any  time,  and 
to  how  small  a  remnant  it  was  ever  reduced,  we  have  not  the  means  of 
ascertaining  ;  but  we  know  that  it  was  always  in  existence,  and  that  it  con- 
stituted the  true  Israel,  the  real  Church  of  the  Old  Testament. 

To  this  class  the  corruption  of  the  general  body  must  have  been  a  cause 
not  only  of  sorrow  but  of  apprehension  ;  and  if  express  prophetic  threaten- 
ings  had  been  wanting,  they  could  scarcely  fail  to  anticipate  the  punishment 
and  even  the  rejection  of  their  nation.  But  in  this  anticipation  they  were 
themselves  liable  to  error.  Their  associations  were  so  intimately  blended 
with  the  institutions  under  which  they  lived,  that  they  must  have  found  it 
hard  to  separate  the  idea  of  Israel  as  a  church  from  that  of  Israel  as  a 
nation  ;  a  difficulty  similar  in  kind,  however  different  in  degree,  from  that 
which  we  experience  in  forming  a  conception  of  the  continued  existence  of 
the  soul  without  the  body.  And  as  all  men,  in  the  latter  case,  however 
fully  they  may  be  persuaded  of  the  separate  existence  of  the  spirit  and  of 
its  future  disembodied  state,  habitually  speak  of  it  in  terms  strictly  appli- 
cable only  to  its  present  state,  so  the  ancient  saints,  however  strong  their 
faith,  were  under  the  necessity  of  framing  their  conceptions,  as  to  future 
things,  upon  the  model  of  those  present ;  and  the  imperceptible  extension 
of  this  process  beyond  the  limits  of  necessity,  would  naturally  tend  to  gene- 
rate errors  not  of  form  merely  but  of  substance.  Among  these  we  may 
readUy  suppose  to  have  had  place  the  idea,  that  as  Israel  had  been  unfaith- 
ful to  its  trust,  and  was  to  be  rejected,  the  Church  or  People  of  God  must 
as  a  body  share  the  same  fate  ;  or  in  other  words,  that  if  the  national  Israel 
perished,  the  spiritual  Israel  must  perish  with  it,  at  least  so  far  as  to  be 
disorganized  and  resolved  into  its  elements. 

The  same  confusion  of  ideas  still  exists  among  the  uninstructed  classes, 
and  to  some  extent  among  the  more  enlightened  also,  in  those  countries  where 
the  Church  has  for  ages  been  a  national  establishment,  and  scarcely  known 
in  any  other  form  ;  as,  for  instance,  in  Sweden  and  Norway  among  Pro- 
testants, or  Spain  and  Portugal  among  the  Papists.  To  the  most  devout  in 
such  communities  the  downfall  of  the  hierarchical  establishment  seems  per- 
fectly identical  with  the  extinction  of  the  Church  ;  and  nothing  but  a  long 
course  of  instruction,  and  perhaps  experience,  could  enable  them  to  form 
the  idea  of  a  disembodied,  unestablished  Christian  Church.  If  such  mis- 
takes are  possible  and  real  even  now,  we  have  little  reason  either  to  dispute 
their  existence  or  to  wonder  at  it,  under  the  complicated  forms  and  in  the 
imperfect  light  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  It  is  not  only  credible  but 
altogether  natural,  that  even  true  believers,  unassisted  by  a  special  revela- 
tion, should  have  shunned  the  extreme  of  looking  upon  Israel's  pre-eminence 
among  the  nations  as  original  and  perpetual,  only  by  verging  towards  the 
opposite  error  of  supposing  that  the  downfall  of  the  nation  would  involve 
the  abolition  of  the  Church,  and  human  unbeUef  defeat  the  purposes  and 
make  void  the  promises  of  God. 

Here  then  are  several  distinct  but  cognate  forms  of  error,  which  appear 
to  have  gained  currency  among  the  Jews  before  the  time  of  Hezekiah,  in 
relation  to  the  two  great  distinctive  features  of  their  national  condition,  the 
ceremonial  law  and  their  seclusion  from  the  Gentiles.     Upon  each  of  these 


54  INTRODUCTION. 

points  there  were  two  shades  of  opinion  entertained  hy  very  different  chsses. 
The  Mosaic  ceremonies  were  wilh  some  a  pretext  for  idohxtrous  observances  ; 
while  others  rested  in  them,  not  as  types  or  symbols,  but  as  efficacious 
means  of  expiation.  The  pre-eminence  of  Israel  was  by  some  regarded  as 
perpetual  ;  while  others  apprehended  in  its  tLrmination  the  extinction  of 
the  Church  itself.  These  various  forms  of  error  mig;ht  be  variously  com- 
bined and  modified  in  different  cases,  and  their  general  result  must  of  course 
have  contributed  largely  to  determine  the  character  of  the  Church  and 
nation. 

It  was  not,  perhaps,  until  these  errors  had  begun  to  take  a  definite  and 
settled  form  among  the  people,  that  the  Prophets,  who  had  hitherto  con- 
fined themselves  to  oral  instruction  or  historical  composition,  were  directed 
to  utter  and  record  for  constant  use  discourses  meant  to  be  corrective  or 
condemnatory  of  these  dangerous  perversions.  This  may  at  least  be  re- 
garded as  a  plausible  solution  of  the  fact  that  prophetic  writing  in  the  strict 
sense  became  so  much  more  abundant  in  the  later  days  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment histoiy.  Of  these  prophetic  writings,  still  preserved  in  our  canon, 
there  is  scarcely  any  part  which  has  not  a  perceptible  and  direct  bearing  on 
the  state  of  feeling  and  opinion  which  has  been  described.  This  is  empha- 
tically true  of  Isaiah's  Earlier  Prophecies,  which,  though  so  various  in  form, 
arc  all  adapted  to  correct  the  errors  in  question,  or  to  establish  the  antago- 
nistic truths.  This  general  design  of  these  predictions  might  be  so  used  as 
to  throw  new  light  upon  their  exposition,  by  connecting  it  more  closely  with 
the  prevalent  errors  of  the  ancient  Church  than  has  been  attempted  in  ouv 
Commentary  on  that  portion  of  the  book.  Guided  even  by  this  vaguo 
suggestion,  an  attentive  reader  will  be  able  for  the  most  part  to  determine 
wilh  respect  to  each  successive  section  whether  it  was  speedily  intended 
to  rebuke  idolatry,  to  rectify  the  errors  of  the  formalist  in  reference  to  the 
ceremonial  system,  to  bring  down  the  arrogance  of  a  mistaken  nationality, 
or  to  console  the  true  believer  by  assuring  him  that  though  the  carnal 
Israel  should  perish,  the  true  Israel  must  endure  for  ever. 

But  although  this  purpose  may  lie  traced,  to  some  extent,  in  all  the  pro- 
phecies, it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  some  part  of  the  canon  would  be 
occupied  with  a  direct,  extensive,  and  contmuous  exhibition  of  the  truth 
upon  a  subject  so  momentous ;  and  the  date  of  such  a  prophecy  could 
scarcely  be  assigned  to  any  other  period  so  naturally  as  to  that  which  has 
been  specified — the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  when  all  the  various  forms  of  error 
and  corruption  which  had  successively  prevailed  were  coexistent,  when 
idolatry,  although  suppressed  by  law,  was  still  openly  or  secretly  practised, 
and  in  many  cases  superseded  only  by  a  hypocritical  formality  and  ritual 
religion,  attended  by  an  overweening  sense  of  the  national  pre-eminence 
of  Israel,  from  which  even  the  most  godly  seem  to  have  ft)und  refuge  in 
despondent  fears  and  sceptical  misgivings.  At  such  a  time, — when  the 
theocracy  had  long  since  reached  and  passed  its  zenith,  and  a  series  of 
providential  shocks,  with  intervals  of  brief  repose,  had  already  begun  to 
loosen  the  foundations  of  the  old  economy  in  preparation  for  its  ultimate 
removal, — such  a  discourse  as  that  supposed  must  have  been  eminently 
seasonable,  if  not  absolutely  needed,  to  rebuke  sin,  correct  error,  and  sus- 
tain the  hopes  of  true  believers.  It  was  equally  important,  nay,  essential 
to  the  great  end  of  the  temporary  system,  that  the  way  for  its  final  abroga- 
tion should  be  gradually  prepared,  and  that  in  the  mean  time  it  should  be 
maintained  in  constant  operation. 

If  the  circumstances  of  the  times  which  have  been  stated  are  enough  to 


IKTR  OB  UCTIOX.  5  5 

make  it  probable  that  such  a  revelation  would  be  given,  they  will  also  aid 
us  in  determining  beforehand,  not  in  detail,  but  in  the  general,  its  form  and 
character.  Ths  historical  occasion  and  the  end  proposed  would  naturally 
lead  us  to  expect  in  such  a  book  the  simultaneous  or  alternate  presentation 
of  a  few  great  leading  truths,  perhaps  with  accompanying  refutation  of  the 
adverse  errors,  and  \\ith  such  reproofs,  remonstrances,  and  exhortations, 
j)romises  and  threatenings,  as  the  condition  of  the  people  springing  from 
these  errors  might  require,  not  only  at  the  date  of  the  prediction,  but  in 
later  times.  In  executing  this  design,  the  prophet  might  have  been  expected 
to  pursue  a  method  more  rhetorical  than  logical,  and  to  enforce  his  doc- 
trine, not  so  much  by  dry  didactic  statements  as  by  animated  argument, 
combined  with  earnest  exhortation,  passionate  appeals,  poetical  apostrophes, 
impressive  repetitions,  and  illusirations  drawn  both  from  the  ancient  and 
the  later  history  of  Israel.  In  fine,  from  what  has  been  alread}^  said  it 
follows  that  the  doctrines  which  would  naturally  constitute  the  st;iple  of  the 
prophecy  in  such  a  case,  are  those  relating  to  the  true  design  of  Israel's 
vocation  and  seclusion  from  the  Gentiles,  and  of  the  ceremonial  institu- 
tions under  which  he  was  in  honourable  bondage.  The  sins  and  errors 
which  find  their  condemnation  in  the  statement  of  these  truths  are  those  of 
actual  idolatry,  a  ritual  formality,  a  blinded  nationality,  and  a  despondent 
apprehension  of  the  failure  of  Jehovah's  promise.  Such  might  even  a 
priori  be  regarded  as  the  probable  structure  and  complexion  of  a  prophecy 
or  series  of  proiDhecies  intended  to  secure  the  end  in  question.  If  the  per- 
son called  to  this  important  service  had  already  been  the  organ  of  divine 
communications  upon  other  subjects,  or  with  more  direct  reference  to  other 
objects,  it  would  be  reasonable  to  expect  a  marked  diversity  between  these 
former  prophecies  and  that  uttered  under  a  new  impulse.  Besides  the 
very  great  and  striking  diflerence  which  must  always  be  perceptible  between 
a  series  of  detached  compositions,  varying,  and  possibly  remote  from  one 
another  as  to  date,  and  a  continuous  discourse  on  one  great  theme,  there 
would  be  other  unavoidable  distinctions  springing  directly  from  the  new  and 
wide  scope  of  prophetic  vision,  and  from  the  concentration  in  one  vision  of 
the  elements  ditTused  through  many  others.  This  diversity  would  be 
enhanced,  of  coarse,  by  any  striking  difference  of  outvrard  circumstances, 
such  as  the  advanced  ago  of  the  writer,  his  matured  experience,  his  seclusion 
from  the  world  and  from  active  life,  or  any  other  changes  v/hich  might  have 
the  same  effect ;  but  even  in  the  absence  of  these  outward  causes,  the  diver- 
sity would  still  be  very  great  and  unavoidable. 

From  these  probabilities  let  us  now  turn  to  realities.  Precisely  such  a 
book  as  that  described  is  extant,  having  formed  a  part  of  the  collection  of 
Isaiah's  Prophecies  as  far  back  as  the  history  of  tlie  canon  can  be  ti'aced, 
without  the  slightest  vestige  of  a  different  tradition  among  Jews  or  Chris- 
tians as  to  the  author.  The  tone  and  spirit  of  these  chapters  are  precisely 
such  as  might  have  been  expected  from  the  cii'cumstances  under  which  they 
are  alleged  to  have  been  written,  and  their  variations  from  the  earlier  chap- 
ters such  as  must  have  been  expected  from  the  change  in  the  circumstances 
themselves. 

A  cursory  inspection  of  these  Later  Prophecies  is  enough  to  satisfy  the 
reader  that  he  has  before  him  neither  a  concatenated  argument  nor  a  mass 
of  fragments,  but  a  continuous  discourse,  in  which  the  same  great  top'cs 
are  continually  following  each  other,  somewhat  modified  in  form  and  com- 
bination, but  essentially  the  same  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  If  re- 
quired to  designate  a  single  theme  as  that  of  the  whole  series,  we  might 


56  INTRODUCTION. 

safely  give  the  preference  to  Israel,  the  Peculiar  People,  the  Church  of  the 
Old  Testament,  its  origin,  vocation,  mission,  sins  and  sufferings,  former  ex- 
perience, and  final  destiny.  The  doctrine  inculcated  as  to  this  great  suh- 
ject,  may  be  summarily  stated  thus.  The  race  of  Israel  was  chosen  from 
among  the  other  nations,  and  maintained  in  the  possession  of  peculiar  pri- 
vileges, not  for  the  sake  of  any  original  or  acquired  meVit,  but  by  a 
sovereign  act  of  the  divine  will ;  not  for  their  own  exclusive  benefit  and 
aggrandisement,  but  for  the  ultimate  salvation  of  the  world.  The  cere- 
monies of  the  Law  were  of  no  intrinsic  efiicacy,  and  when  so  regarded  and 
relied  on,  became  hateful  in  the  sight  of  God.  Still  more  absurd  and 
impious  was  the  practice  of  analogous  ceremonies,  not  in  obedience  to 
Jehovah's  will,  but  in  the  worship  of  imaginary  deities  or  idols.  The 
Levitical  rites,  besides  immediate  uses  of  a  lower  kind,  were  symbols  of 
God's  holiness  and  man's  corrnjotion,  the  necessity  of  expiation  in  general, 
and  of  expiation  by  vicarious  sufiering  in  particular.  Among  them  there 
were  also  types,  prophetic  symbols,  of  the  very  form  in  which  the  gi'eat 
work  of  atonement  was  to  be  accomplished,  and  of  Him  by  whom  it  was  to 
be  performed.  Until  this  work  was  finished,  and  this  Saviour  come,  the 
promise  of  both  was  exclusively  entrusted  to  the  chosen  people,  who  were 
bound  to  preserve  it  both  in  its  written  and  its  ritual  form.  To  this  mo- 
mentous trust  a  large  portion  of  the  nation  had  been  unfaithful,  some 
avowedly  forsaking  it  as  open  idolaters,  some  practically  betraying  it  as 
formal  hypocrites.  For  these  and  other  consequent  ofi"ences,  Israel  as  a 
nation  w^as  to  be  rejected  and  deprived  of  its  pre- eminence.  But  in  so 
doing  God  would  not  cast  ofl'  his  people.  The  promises  to  Israel,  con- 
sidered as  the  people  of  Jehovah,  should  endure  to  the  body  of  believers, 
the  remnant  uccordhvj  to  the  election  of  (jrace.  These  were  in  fact  from 
the  beginning  the  true  Israel,  the  true  seed  of  Abraham,  the  Jews  who  were 
Jews  inu-ardlij.  In  these  the  continued  existence  of  the  Church  should  be 
secured  and  perpetuated,  first  within  the  limits  of  the  outward  Israel,  and 
then  by  the  accession  of  believing  Gentiles  to  the  spiritual  Israel.  When 
the  fulness  of  time  should  come  for  the  removal  of  the  temporary  and  re- 
strictive institutions  of  the  old  economy,  that  change  should  be  so  ordci*ed 
as  not  only  to  effect  the  emancipation  of  the  Church  from  ceremonial  bond- 
age, but  at  the  same  time  to  attest  the  divine  disapprobation  of  the  sins 
committed  by  the  carnal  Israel  throughout  their  history.  While  these  had 
eveiything  to  fear  from  the  approaching  change,  the  spiritual  Israel  had 
everything  to  hope, — not  only  the  continued  existence  of  the  Church,  but 
its  existence  under  a  more  spuitual,  free,  and  glorious  dispensation,  to  be 
ushered  in  by  the  appearance  of  that  Great  Deliverer  towards  whom  the 
ceremonies  of  the  Law  all  pointed. 

From  this  succinct  statement  of  the  Prophet's  doctrine,  it  is  easy  to 
account  for  some  peculiarities  of  form  and  phraseology  ;  particularly  for  the 
constant  alternation  of  encouragement  and  threatening,  and  for  the  twofold 
sense  or  father  api^lication  of  the  national  name,  Israel.  This  latter  usage 
is  explained  by  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (chap.  ii.  17-29  ;  ix. 
6-9 ;  xi.  1-7),  where  the  very  same  doctrine  is  propounded  in  relation  to 
the  ancient  Church  that  we  have  just  obtained  by  a  fair  induction  from 
Isaiah's  later  Prophecies.  There  is  in  fact  no  part  of  the  Old  Testament  to 
which  the  New  afibrds  a  more  decisive  kej'  in  the  shape  of  an  authoritative 
and  inspired  interpretation. 

Another  peculiaiity  of  form  highly  important  in  the  exposition  of  these 
Prophecies,  is  the  frequent  introduction  of  allusions  to  particular  events  in 


INTRODUCTION.  51 

tlie  history  of  Israel,  as  examples  of  the  general  truths  so  constantly  re- 
peated. The  events  thus  cited  are  not  numerous,  but  of  the  greatest  mag- 
nitude, such  as  the  calling  of  Abraham,  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  the  destruc- 
tion of  Babylon,  the  return  from  exile,  and  the  advent  of  Messiah.  These 
events  have  sometimes  been  confounded  by  interpreters,  and  even  so  far 
misconceived  as  to  put  a  new  and  false  face  on  the  whole  prediction,  as  v/c 
shall  have  occasion  more  explicitly  to  state  below.  At  present,  let  it  be 
observed  that  the  prophetical  discourse  is  continually  varied  and  relieved  by 
these  historical  allusions. 

The  fairest  and  the  most  decisive  test  by  which  the  foregoing  views  of 
the  design  and  subject  of  these  Later  Prophecies  can  be  tried,  is  one  within 
the  reach  of  any  reader  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  apply  it,  by  a  careful 
perusal  of  the  prophecies  themselves,  even  without  any  other  comment  than 
the  general  suggestions  which  have  been  already  made.  If  this  should  still 
prove  insufficieut  to  estabhsh  the  correctness  of  the  exegetical  hypothesis 
proposed,  that  end  may  still  be  answered  by  comparing  this  hypothesis  with 
others  which  have  more  or  less  prevailed  among  interpreters. 

Let  us  first  compare  with  the  hypothesis  just  stated,  the  one  assumed 
wholly  or  in  part  by  Cocceius  and  others,  who  appear  disposed  to  recog- 
nise in  these  Later  Prophecies  specific  periods  and  events  in  the  history  of 
the  Christian  Church.  Of  this  abundant  illustration  will  be  given  in  the 
Commentary  on  the  Prophecies  themselves.  Meantime,  it  may  be  stated 
in  the  general,  that  besides  the  arbitrary  character  of  such  interpretation, 
and  the  infinite  diversity  which  it  exhibits  in  the  hands  of  difierent  writers, 
it  creates  the  necessity  of  putting  the  most  forced  interpretations  on  the 
plainest  terms,  and  of  denying  that  Babylon,  Israel,  &c.,  were  intended  to 
mean  Babylon,  Israel,  &c.,  in  any  sense  warranted  by  Hebrew  usage.  And 
even  in  those  parts  of  the  Prophecy  which  do  refer  to  later  times  and  to  the 
new  dispensation,  these  interpreters  are  under  the  necessity  of  violating  one 
of  the  most  strongly  marked  peculiarities  of  this  whole  book,  viz.,  the 
general  view  which  it  exhibits  of  the  new  dispensation  as  a  whole,  from  its 
inception  to  its  consummation,  as  contrasted  with  the  more  specific  mention 
of  particular  events  before  the  change,  even  when  future  to  the  Prophet's 
own  times.  This  mode  of  exposition,  at  least  in  its  extreme  forms,  has 
received  its  most  efiective  refutation  from  the  lapse  of  time.  When  we  find 
such  writers  as  Cocceius,  and  less  frequently  Vitringa,  seeking  the  fulfil- 
ment of  grand  prophecies  in  petty  squabbles  of  the  Dutch  Church  or 
Republic,  which  have  long  since  lost  their  place  in  general  history,  the 
practical  lesson  thus  imported  is  of  more  force  than  the  most  ingenious 
arguments,  to  shew  that  such  interpretation  rests  upon  a  false  hypothesis. 

A  very  different  fate  has  been  experienced  by  the  ancient  and  still  current 
doctrine,  that  the  main  subject  of  these  Prophecies  throughout,  is  the  resto- 
ration from  the  Babylonish  exile.  While  this  hypothesis  has  been  assumed  as 
undeniable  by  many  Christian  writers,  it  affords  the  whole  foundation  of  the 
modern  neological  criticism  and  exegesis.  It  is  worth  while,  therefore,  to 
examine  somewhat  closely  the  pretensions  of  this  theory  to  general  reception. 

In  the  first  place,  let  it  be  observed  how  seldom,  after  all,  the  book  men- 
tions Babylon,  the  Exile,  or  the  Restoration.  This  remark  is  made  in 
reference  to  those  cases  only  where  these  subjects  are  expressly  mentioned, 
i.e.  either  named  totidem  verbis,  or  described  in  terms  which  will  apply  to 
nothing  else.  An  exact  enumeration  of  such  cases,  made  for  the  first  time, 
might  surprise  one  whose  previous  impressions  had  been  all  derived  from 
the  sweeping  declarations  of  interpreters  and  critics.     It  is  true  the  cases 


58  INTRODUCTION. 

may  be  vastly  multiplied  by  taking  into  account  all  the  indirect  allusions 
which  these  writers  are  accustomed  to  assume,  i.e.  by  applying  to  the 
Exile  all  the  places  and  particular  expressions  ^Yhich  admit  by  possibility 
of  such  an  application.  Having  first  inferred  from  the  explicit  prophecies 
respecting  Babylon,  that  this  is  the  great  subject  of  the  book,  it  is  perfectly 
easy  to  apply  to  this  same  subject  hundreds  of  phrases  in  themselves  inde- 
finite and  wholly  dependent  for  specific  meaning  upon  some  hypothesis  like 
that  in  question. 

The  necessary  tendency  of  such  a  method  to  excess,  is  illustrated  by  the 
gradual  advances  of  the  later  German  writers  in  the  specific  explanation  of 
these  chapters.  Where  Rosenmiiller  and  Geseuius  were  contented  to  find 
general  poetical  descriptions  of  the  Exile  and  the  Restoration,  Hitzig  detects 
precise  chronological  allusions  to  particular  campaigns  and  battles  in  the 
progress  of  Cyrus ;  and  this  again  is  pushed  so  far  by  Hendewerk  and 
Knobel,  that  they  sometimes  find  more  striking  and  minute  coincidences 
between  this  Hebrew  writer  and  Herodotus  or  Xcnophon,  than  any  of  the 
old-fashioned  orthodox  writers  ever  dreamed  of  finding  between  him  and 
the  New  Testament.  To  hear  these  writers  talk  of  the  battle  of  Pasargada, 
the  defeat  of  Neriglassar,  the  first  and  second  attack  on  Babylonia,  the 
taking  of  Sardis,  &c.,  &c.,  we  might  fancy  ourselves  listening  to  Eusebius 
or  Cocceius,  with  a  simple  substitution  of  profane  for  sacred  histor}'. 

The  fallacy  of  this  mode  of  interpretation  hes  in  the  fact  that  the  inde- 
finite expressions  thus  applied  to  one  event  or  series  of  events,  might  just 
as  naturally  be  applied  to  others,  if  these  others  were  first  fixed  upon  as 
being  the  main  subject  of  the  whole  composition.  Thus,  all  admit  that 
there  are  frequent  allusions  in  these  later  chapters  to  the  exodus  from 
Egypt.  Now  if  any  interpreter  should  be  intrepid  and  absurd  enough  to 
argue  that  they  must  have  been  composed  by  Moses,  and  that  tbe  great 
deliverance  then  wrought  must  be  the  subject  of  the  whole  book,  whatever 
difficulties,  and  however  insurmountable,  this  doctrine  might  encounter  in  a 
difierent  direction,  it  could  find  none  in  adapting  what  is  said  of  crossing 
seas  and  rivers,  opening  fomitains,  journeys  through  the  desert,  subjuga- 
tion of  enemies,  rest  in  the  promised  land,  &c.  &c.,  to  the  original  exodus, 
with  far  less  violence  than  to  the  restoration  from  captivity.  It  is  equally 
true,  but  in  a  less  degree,  that  Grotius,  who  refers  some  portions  of  this 
book  to  the  period  of  the  Maccabees,  is  perfectly  successful,  after  having 
once  assumed  this  as  the  subject,  in  accommodating  to  it  many  of  the  very 
same  expressions  which  another  class  of  writers  no  less  confidently  claim  as 
clear  allusions  to  the  Babylonian  exile. 

The  fallacy  of  such  exegetical  reasoning  may  be  further  exposed  by 
applying  tbe  same  process  to  a  distinct  but  analogous  case.  Tn  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  Paul  is  now  almost  universally  regarded  as  foretelling  the 
restoration  of  the  Jews  to  the  favour  of  God.  Assuming  this  to  be  the 
theme  not  only  of  those  passages  in  which  it  is  expressly  mentioneil,  but  of 
the  whole  Epistle,  an  interpreter  of  no  great  ingenuity  might  go  completely 
through  it,  putting  upon  every  general  expression  a  specific  sense,  in  strict 
agreement  with  his  foregone  conclusion.  All  that  relates  to  justification 
might  be  limited  to  the  Jews  of  some  future  day  ;  the  glorious  truth  that 
there  is  no  condemnation  to  believers  in  Christ  Jesus,  made  a  specific  and 
exclusive  promise  to  converted  Jews  ;  and  the  precious  promise  that  all 
things  shall  work  together  for  good  to  them  thit  love  God,  made  to  mean 
that  all  events  shall  be  so  ordered  as  to  bring  about  the  future  restoration 
of  the  Jews.     The  very  absurdity  of  such  conclusions  makes  them  better 


INTRODUCTION.  59 

illustrations  of  the  erroneous  principles  involved  in  similar  interpretations 
of  the  more  obscure  and  less  familiar  parts  of  Scripture. 

Setting  aside  the  cases  which  admit  of  one  application  as  well  as  another, 
or  of  this  aiDplication  only  because  of  a  foregone  conclusion,  the  truth  of 
which  cannot  be  determined  by  expressions  deriving  their  specific  meaning 
from  itself,  let  the  reader  now  enumerate  the  instances  in  which  the  refer- 
ence to  Babylon,  the  Exile,  and  the  Restoration,  is  not  only  possible  but 
necessary.  He  must  not  be  surprised  if  he  discovers  as  the  fruit  of  his 
researches,  that  the  Prophet  speaks  of  Babylon  less  frequently  than  Egypt ; 
that  the  ruins,  desolations  and  oppressions,  which  he  mentions  in  a  multi- 
tude of  places  are  no  more  Babylonian  than  Egyptian  or  Roman  in  the 
text  itself,  and  only  made  so  by  the  interest  or  fancy  of  some  writers,  the 
authority  of  others,  and  the  easy  faith  of  the  remainder. 

In  opposition  to  these  strained  conclusions,  we  have  only  to  propound 
the  obvious  supposition  that  the  downfall  of  Babylon  is  repeatedly  men- 
tioned, like  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  as  a  great  event  iu  the  history  of 
Israel ;  but  that  the  subject  of  the  prophecy  is  neither  the  Egj-ptian  nor  the 
Babylonian  bondage,  nor  deliverance  from  either,  but  the  whole  condition, 
character,  and  destiny  of  Israel  as  the  chosen  people  and  the  Church  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

All  the  hypotheses  w^hich  have  been  mentioned  are  agreed^in  assuming 
the  unity  of  these  predictions  as  the  product  not  only  of  a  single  age,  but 
of  a  single  writer.  This  unity,  however,  was  by  no  means  recognised  by 
those  who  first  applied  the  principles  and  methods  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
to  Isaiah.  The  earliest  hint  of  any  new  discovery  is  commonly  ascribed  to 
Koppe,  who,  in  a  note  upon  his  German  edition  of  Bishop  Lowth's  work, 
suggests  that  the  fiftieth  chapter  may  have  been  written  by  Ezekiel  or  some 
other  Jew  in  exile.  A  similar  opinion  was  expressed  about  the  same  time 
by  Dciderlein  and  Eichhorn  with  i-espect  to  the  entire  latter  part  of  Isaiah. 
The  same  hypothesis  was  then  carried  out  in  detail  by  Justi,  and  adopted  by 
Bauer,  Paulus,  Bertholdt,  and  Augusti ;  so  that  not  long  after  the  begin- 
ning of  this  centur}',  it  was  established  as  the  current  doctrine  of  the  Ger- 
man schools. 

This  revolution  of  opinion,  though  ostensibly  the  pure  result  of  critical 
analysis,  was  closely  connected  with  the  growing  unbelief  in  inspiration, 
and  the  consequent  necessity  of  explaining  away  whatever  appeared  either 
to  demonstrate  or  involve  it.  It  must  also  be  noted  as  a  circumstance  of 
great  importance  in  the  history  of  this  controversy,  that  the  3'oung  theolo- 
gians of  Germany  for  fifty  years  were  almost  as  uniformly  taught  and  as 
constantly  accustomed  to  assume  the  certainty  of  this  fii'st  principle,  as 
their  fathers  had  been  to  assume  the  contrary.  This  fact  will  enable  us  to 
estimate  at  something  like  their  real  value  the  pretensions  to  superior  can- 
dour and  impartiality  advanced  by  the  neological  interpreters,  and  more  espe- 
cially by  some  of  recent  date,  who  are  in  truth  as  strongly  biassed  by  the 
prejudice  of  education  as  their  immediate  predecessors  by  the  love  of 
novelty  and  passion  for  discovery. 

The  defenders  of  the  unity  of  this  part  of  Isaiah  were  in  process  of  time 
relieved  from  much  of  the  irksome  task  which  they  had  undertaken  by  the 
■concessions  of  the  adverse  party,  that  the  Higher  Criticism  had  been  pushed 
too  far,  and  made  to  prove  too  much  ;  in  consequence  of  which  a  retroces- 
sion became  necessarj-,  and  ia  fact  took  place  under  the  guidance  of  new 
leaders,  not  without  an  earnest  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  original  dis- 
coverers. 


60  INTEGLUCTIOK 

This  retreat  was  effected  with  great  skill  and  conduct,  but  with  no  small 
Bacrifice  of  logical  consistency,  by  Geseuius  in  the  Introduction  to  his 
second  volume.  "Without  any  appeal  to  general  principles  or  any  attempt 
to  distinguish  clearly  between  what  he  abandons  as  "  extreme"  and  what 
he  adopts  as  rational  conclusions,  he  proceeds,  by  his  favourite  method  of 
accumulation  and  arrangement  of  particulars,  to  prove  that  these  twenty- 
seven  chapters  are  the  work  of  the  same  author,  and  that  in  the  main  they 
are  still  in  the  same  order  as  at  first,  the  only  material  exception  being  a 
surmise  that  the  last  chapters  may  possibly  be  older  than  the  first ;  which 
seems  to  have  been  prompted  by  a  natural  reluctance  to  acknowledge  that 
an  ancient  composition  could  remain  so  long  unchanged,  not  without  a 
misgiving  with  respect  to  the  influence  which  this  concession  might  exert 
hereafter  on  the  criticism  of  the  earlier  chapters. 

Although  Gesenius's  argument  in  favour  of  the  unity  of  these  pi'edictions 
is  entirely  successful,  a  large  proportion  of  his  detailed  proofs  are  quite 
superfluous.  It  is  an  error  of  this  German  school,  and  of  its  imitators 
elsewhere,  that  identity  of  authorship  must  be  established  by  minute  resem- 
blances of  diction,  phraseology,  and  syntax,  which  are  therefore  raked 
together  and  displayed  with  a  profusion  far  more  confounding  than  con- 
vincing to  the  reader.  To  the  great  mass  of  cultivated  minds,  conviction 
in  such  cases  is  produced  by  data  not  susceptible  of  exhibition  in  the  form 
of  schedules,  catalogues,  or  tables,  but  resulting  from  a  general  impression 
of  continuity  and  oneness,  which  might  be  just  as  strong  if  not  a  single 
phrase  or  combination  occun-ed  more  than  once,  and  the  want  of  which 
could  never  be  supplied  by  any  number  or  servility  of  verbal  repetitions. 
It  is  thus  that  the  modern  imitators  of  the  classics  may  be  almost  infal- 
libly detected,  though  their  diction  be  but  a  cento  of  quotations  from 
their  favourite  author,  renewed  and  multiplied  ?/s(/»e  ad  nauseam;  while 
the  original  is  known  wherever  he  appears,  however  innocent  of  copying 
himself. 

This  error  of  the  higher  or  lower  criticism,  even  when  enlisted  on  the 
right  side  of  a  question,  it  is  important  to  expose  ;  because  many  of  its 
boasted  triumphs  in  behalf  of  error  have  been  gained  by  the  very  petilesse 
of  its  expedients.  The  readers  of  Isaiah,  in  particular,  have  often  been 
bewildered  and  unfairly  pi-epossessed  against  the  truth,  by  the  interminable 
catalogues  of  Hebrew  words  and  phrases  which  are  crowded  into  prefaces 
and  introductions  as  preliminary  proofs  of  a  position  that  can  only  be  estab- 
lished, if  at  all,  by  the  cumulative  weight  of  a  detailed  interpretation  ; 
the  effect  of  which  is  often  to  expose  the  absolute  futility  of  arguments, 
considered  one  by  one  and  in  their  proper  place,  which  seem  to  gain  reality 
and  force  by  insulation  from  the  context,  and  by  being  thrown  together  in 
crude  masses,  or  forced  into  unnatural  protrusion  by  the  forms  of  a  sys- 
tematic catalogue. 

The  minute  details  which  constitute  this  portion  of  Gesenius's  argument 
against  the  fragmentary  theory,  must  be  sought  in  his  own  work,  or  in 
those  which  have  transcribed  it.  Much  more  important  and  conclusive  is 
that  part  of  his  argument  derived  from  the  unquestionable  fact,  that  certain 
threads  may  be  traced  running  through  the  entire  texture  of  these  Later 
Prophecies,  sometimes  dropped  but  never  broken,  crossing  each  other,  and 
at  times  appearing  to  be  hopelessly  entangled,  but  all  distinguished,  and 
yet  all  united  in  the  denouement.  The  perpetual  recurrence  and  succession 
of  these  topics  is  correctly  represented  by  Gesenius  as  the  strongest  proof 
of  unity.     In  opposition  to  Augusti,  who  alleges  that  some  topics  are  more 


INTRODUCTION.  61 

prominent  at  first  than  afterwards,  and  vice  versa,  Gesenius  replies  that 
progress  and  variety  are  perfectly  consistent  with  the  strictest  unity  ;  that 
the  author's  ideal  situation  is  the  same  throughout ;  and  that  all  the  topics 
which  become  more  prominent  as  he  proceeds,  had  at  least  been  lightly 
touched  before,  to  which  he  adds  another  list  of  verbal  parallels  between 
the  parts  described  as  most  dissimilar.    (See  Gcsen.  Comm.,  vol.  ii.  p.  15.) 

This  reasoning  is  worthy  of  particular  attention,  on  account  of  its 
remarkable  affinity  with  that  by  which  the  defenders  of  the  old  opinions 
have  maintained  the  genuineness  of  disputed  places  in  the  Earlier  Pro- 
phecies, against  objections  of  Gesenius  himself,  precisely  analogous  to 
those  of  Augusti  which  he  here  refutes.  It  would  greatly  contribute  to  the 
correct  decision  of  these  questions,  among  men  who  are  accustomed  to  the 
weighing  of  evidence  on  other  subjects,  if  their  attention  could  be  drawn 
to  the  facility  with  which  the  same  degree  and  kind  of  proof  are  admitted 
or  excluded  b}-  the  Higher  Critics,  according  to  the  end  at  which  they 
happen  to  be  aiming.  Perhaps  one  of  our  most  valuable  safeguards  against 
German  innovations  is  afforded  by  our  civil  institutions,  and  the  lifelong 
familiarity  of  our  people,  either  through  the  press  or  by  personal  participa- 
tion, with  the  public  administration  of  justice  and  the  practical  discrimina- 
tion between  truth  and  falsehood  ;  an  advantage  which  never  can  be  replaced 
by  any  method  or  amount  of  mental  cultivation. 

If  then  these  twenty-seven  chapters  are  confessedly  the  work  of  one 
man,  and  indeed  a  continuous  discourse  on  one  great  subject,  and  if  a 
perfectly  uniform  tradition  has  attached  them  to  the  writings  of  Isaiah  it 
remains  to  be  considered  whether  we  have  any  reason  to  deny  or  even  to 
dispute  the  fact  so  solemnly  attested.  All  the  presumptions  are  in  favour 
of  its  truth.  For  two  thousand  years,  at  least,  the  book  was  universally 
regarded  as  Isaiah's,  and  no  other  name  has  ever  been  connected  with  it 
even  by  mistake  or  accident.  It  is  just  such  a  book  as  the  necessities  of 
that  age  might  have  been  expected  to  call  forth.  Its  genuineness,  there- 
fore, as  a  writing  of  Isaiah,  is  not  a  fact  requiring  demonstration  by  detailed 
and  special  proof,  but  one  attested  both  by  its  external  history  and  its  in- 
ternal structure,  unless  positive  reasons  can  be  given  for  rejecting  a  con- 
clusion which  appears  not  only  obvious  but  unavoidable. 

Among  the  objections  to  Isaiah  as  the  author  of  these  later  chapters, 
there  are  two  upon  which  the  whole  weight  of  the  argument  depends,  and 
to  which  all  others  may  be  reckoned  supplementary.  The  fii-st  of  these 
has  reference  to  the  matter  of  the  prophecies,  the  second  to  their  form. 
The  latter  is  entirely  posterior  in  date,  and  has  been  growing  more  and 
more  prominent,  as  the  necessity  of  something  to  sustain  the  first  and 
main  objection  has  been  forced  upon  its  advocates  by  the  resistance  which 
it  has  encountered.  This  chronological  relation  of  the  two  main  objections 
is  here  stated  not  only  as  a  curious  flict  of  literary  history,  but  also  as 
directly  bearing  on  the  issue  of  the  whole  dispute,  for  reasons  which  will 
be  explained  below. 

The  first  and  main  objection  to  the  doctrine  that  Isaiah  wrote  these 
chapters,  although  variously  stated  by  the  writers  who  have  urcred  it, 
is  in  substance  this  :  that  the  prophet  everywhere  alludes  to  the  circum- 
stances and  events  of  the  Babylonish  exile  as  those  by  which  he  was  him- 
self surrounded,  and  with  which  he  was  familiar,  from  which  his  conceptions 
and  his  images  are  borrowed,  out  of  which  he  looks  both  at  the  future  and 
the  past,  and  in  the  midst  of  which  he  must  as  a  necessary  consequence 
have  lived  and  written. 


C2  INTRODUCTION. 

This  olpjection  involves  two  assumptions,  both  which  must  be  true,  or  it 
is  wholly  without  force.  One  of  these,  viz.,  that  the  Babylonish  exile  is 
the  subject  of  the  whole  book,  has  already  been  disproved  ;  and  there  is 
strictly,  therefore,  no  need  of  considerinj:;  the  other.  But  in  order  that 
the  whole  strength  of  our  cause  may  be  disclosed,  it  will  be  best  to  shew 
that  even  if  the  supposition  just  recited  were  correct,  the  other,  which 
is  equally  essential  to  the  truth  of  the  conclusion,  is  entirely  unfounded. 
This  is  the  assumption  that  the  local  and  historical  allusions  of  a  prophet 
must  be  always  those  of  his  own  times. 

Some  of  the  later  German  writers  try  to  rest  this  upon  general  grounds, 
by  alleging  that  such  is  the  invariable  practice  of  the  Hebrew  prophets. 
But  as  the  book  in  question,  /.  e.  the  latter  portion  of  Isaiah,  is  admitted 
by  these  very  critics  to  deserve  the  highest  rank  among  prophetic  writings, 
and  to  have  exercised  a  more  extensive  influence  on  later  writers  and 
opinions  than  any  other,  it  is  unreasonable  to  appeal  to  a  usage  of  which 
the  book  itself  may  be  considered  as  a  normal  standard.  It  is  in  fact 
a  begging  of  the  question  to  deny  that  such  was  the  prophetic  usage, 
when  that  denial  really  involves  an  allegation  that  it  is  not  so  in  the  case 
before  us. 

Another  answer  to  this  argument  from  usage  may  be  drawni  from  the 
analogy  of  other  kinds  of  composition,  in  which  all  grant  that  a  w-riter  may 
assume  a  "  Stanclpioikt  "  different  from  his  own,  and  personate  those  earlier 
and  later  than  himself.  The  classical  historians  do  this  when  they  put 
their  own  words  into  the  mouths  of  ancient  heroes  and  statesmen  ;  the 
dramatic  poets  when  they  carry  out  this  personation  in  detail  ;  and  still 
more  imaginative  writers,  when  they  throw  themselves  into  the  future,  and 
surround  themselves  by  circumstances  not  yet  in  existence.  If  it  be  natu- 
ral for  poets  thus  to  speak  of  an  ideal  future,  why  may  not  prophets  of  a 
real  one  ?  The  only  answer  is,  because  they  cannot  know  it  ;  and  to  this 
point  all  the  tortuous  evasions  of  the  more  reserved  neologists  as  surely 
tend  as  the  positive  averments  of  their  bolder  brethren.  In  every  form, 
this  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  the  book  before  us  is  at  bottom 
a  denial  of  prophetic  inspiration  as  impossible.  For  if  the  prophet  could, 
foresee  the  future,  his  allusions  only  prove  that  he  did  foresee  it ;  and  the 
positive  assertion  that  the  prophets  never  do  so,  unless  it  be  founded  upon 
this  hypothesis,  is  just  as  foolish  as  it  would  be  to  assert  that  historians 
and  poets  never  do  the  like.  Unless  we  are  prepared  to  go  the  same 
length,  we  cannot  consistently  reject  these  prophecies  as  spurious,  on  the 
ground  that  they  allude  to  events  long  posterior  to  the  ^v^iter's  times,  even 
if  these  allusions  were  as  numerous  and  explicit  as  we  have  seen  them  to 
be  few  when  clear,  and  in  all  other  cases  vague  and  doubtful. 

It  has  indeed  been  said,  in  confirmation  of  this  main  objection,  that  a 
real  foresight  would  extend  to  more  remote  as  well  as  proximate  events, 
"whereas  in  this  case  what  relates  to  the  period  of  the  Exile  is  minutely 
accurate,  while  all  beyond  is  either  blank  or  totally  erroneous  ;  in  proof  of 
-which  w^e  are  referred  to  the  extravagant  descriptions  of  the  times  which 
should  succeed  the  Restoration. 

Both  parts  of  this  reasoning  rest  upon  a  false  assumption  as  to  the  space 
■which  is  occupied  in  this  book  by  the  Babylonish  Exile.  If,  as  we  have 
seen  or  shall  see,  the  alleged  minute  descriptions  of  that  period  are  ima- 
ginary, and  if  the  alleged  extravagant  descriptions  of  its  close  relate  to 
events  altogether  diflerent,  then  this  auxiliaiy  argument  must  share  the 
fate  of  that  which  it  is  brought  in  to  sustain.     To  this  same  category 


INTRODUCTION.  63^ 

appei'tains  the  special  objection  founded  on  the  mention  of  Cyrus  by  name. 
That  it  may  readily  be  solved  by  an  application  of  the  same  principle  will 
be  shewn  in  the  exposition  of  the  passage  where  the  prophecy  occurs. 
(See  below,  chap,  xlv.) 

Another  erroneous  supposition,  which  has  tended  to  confirm  this  first 
objection  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Later  Prophecies  is,  that  they  must  have 
been  intended  solely  for  the  contemporaries  of  the  writer.  This  hypothesis 
is  closely  connected  with  the  denial  of  divine  inspiration.  The  idea  that 
Isaiah  wrote  for  after  ages  is  of  course  a  "nichiifje  Annahme"  to  an  infidel. 
The  Prophet's  work,  according  to  this  theory,  is  more  confined  than  that 
of  the  orator  or  poet.  These  may  be  said  to  labour  for  posterity;  but  his 
views  must  be  limited  to  those  about  him.  Ewald  alone  of  those  who  deny 
a  real  inspiration  (unless  Umbreit  may  be  likewise  so  described)  admits  a 
far-reaching  purpose  in  the  ancient  prophecies.  The  rest  appear  to  be 
agreed  that  nothing  could  be  more  absurd  than  consolation  under  son-ows 
which  were  not  to  be  experienced  for  ages.  Here  again  may  be  seen  the 
working  of  a  double  error,  that  of  making  the  exile  the  great  subject  of  the 
book,  and  that  of  denying  that  it  could  have  been  foreseen  so  long  before- 
hand. Of  all  the  evils  afterwards  matured,  the  germ,  if  nothing  more 
existed  in  Isaiah's  time.  And  even  if  it  did  not,  their  appearance  at  a  later 
date  might  well  have  been  predicted.  If  the  book,  as  we  have  reason  to 
believe,  was  intended  to  secure  a  succession  of  the  highest  ends  :  the  warn- 
ing and  instruction  of  the  Prophet's  own  contemporaries,  the  encourage- 
ment and  consolation  of  the  pious  exiles,  the  reproof  and  conviction  of  their 
unbelieving  brethren,  the  engagement  of  the  Persians  and  especially  of 
Cyrus  in  the  service  of  Jehovah,  the  vindication  of  God's  dealings  with  the 
Jews  both  in  wrath  and  mercy,  and  a  due  preparation  of  the  minds  of  true 
believers  for  the  advent  of  Messiah :  then  such  objections  as  the  one  last 
cited  must  be  either  unmeaning  and  impertinent,  or  simply  equivalent  to  a 
denial  of  prophetic  inspiration. 

To  the  same  head  may  be  referred  those  objections  which  have  been 
derived  from  the  alleged  appearance  of  opinions  in  these  chapters  which  are 
known  to  have  arisen  at  a  later  period.  Besides  the  palpable  petitio  priucipil 
involved  in  such  an  argument,  so  far  as  it  assumes  that  to  be  late  which 
these  prophecies  if  genuine  demonstrate  to  be  ancient,  there  is  here  a^ain  a 
confident  assumption  of  a  fact  as  certain  which  at  best  is  doubtful,  and  in 
my  opinion  utterly  unfounded,  namely,  that  the  strict  obseiwance  of  the 
Sabbath  and  a  particular  regard  to  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  the  sanctu- 
ary, all  belong  to  a  species  of  Judaism  later  than  the  times  of  the  genuine 
Isaiah.  It  is  by  thus  assuming  their  own  paradoxical  conclusions  as  un- 
questionable facts,  that  the  Higher  Critics  of  the  German  school  have  been 
enabled  to  construct  some  of  their  most  successful  arguments. 

All  that  need  be  added  in  relation  to  the  arguments  against  the  genuine- 
ness of  these  chapters  drawn  from  their  matter  or  contents,  is  the  general 
observation  that  their  soundness  may  be  brought  to  the  test  by  inquiring 
whether  ihey  do  not  either  take  for  granted  something  as  belonging  to  the 
prophecy  which  is  not  found  there  by  a  simple  and  natural  interpretation,, 
or  proceed  upon  some  general  false  principle,  such  as  the  denial  of  prophetic 
inspiration  as  impossible.  If  either  of  these  flaws  is  fatal  to  the  aro-ument 
aflected  by  it,  how  much  more  must  it  be  vitiated  by  the  coexistence  of  the 
two,  which  is  the  case  in  many  minor  arguments  of  this  class,  and  empha- 
tically true  of  that  main  argument  to  which  they  are  auxiliary,  namely,  that 
Isaiah  cannot  be  the  writer  of  these  chapters  on  account  of  their  minuta 


64  INTRODUCTION. 

anil  constant  reference  to  the  Babylonian  Exile.     The  alleged  fact  and  the 
inference  arc  equally  unfounded. 

The  other  main  objection  to  the  genuineness  of  these  prophecies  is  founded 
not  upon  their  matter  but  their  manner,  or  in  other  words,  their  diction, 
phraseology,  and  style,  which  are  said  to  be  entirely  unlike  those  of  Isaiah. 
The  minute  specifications  of  this  argument,  so  fiir  as  they  can  lay  claim  even 
to  a  passing  notice,  are  reserved  for  the  exposition  of  the  passages  from 
which  they  are  derived,  and  where  they  may  be  calmly  viewed  in  their 
original  connection,  and  without  the  artificial  glare  produced  by  an  immense 
accumulation  of  detached  examples,  which  may  blind  the  reader  by  their 
number  and  variety,  without  affording  him  the  means  of  judging  for  himself 
how  many  may  at  best  be  dubious,  how  many  inconclusive,  and  how  many 
more  entirely  irrelevant.  For  the  same  reason  no  reliance  will  be  placed 
upon  a  similar  display  of  minute  resemblances  between  these  later  chapters 
and  the  undisputed  writings  of  Isaiah,  although  such  are  furnished  in 
abundance  by  Kleinert,  Hiivernick,  and  others.  Of  the  value  of  such  proofs 
and  the  soundness  of  the  inferences  drawn  from  them,  a  reference  may 
be  made  to  the  first  part  of  the  Introduction.  At  the  same  time  it 
cannot  be  denied  that  the  counterproofs  collected  by  these  writers 
are  of  great  importance,  as  establishing  the  fact  of  their  existence  upon 
both  sides  of  the  controversy,  and  as  sei'ving,  if  no  higher  purpose, 
that  of  cancelling  such  proofs  when  urged  against  the  genuineness  of  the 
prophecies  by  writers  who  to  all  alleged  resemblances  reply  that  "  such 
trifles  can  prove  nothing,"  or  that  the  style  has  been  assimilated  by  a  later 
hand.  For  this  reason  some  of  the  most  striking  coincidences  of  expres- 
sion will  be  noticed  in  the  exposition,  as  well  as  the  discrepancies  which 
have  been  alleged  in  proof  of  later  origin. 

It  has  been  already  mentioned  that  this  argument  from  difference  of 
language  is  much  later  in  its  origin  than  that  derived  from  the  historical 
allusions.  This  is  a  significant  and  important  circumstance.  Had  the 
Hirfher  Criticism  set  out  from  some  palpable  diversity  of  diction  as  a  starting- 
point,  and,  after  vainly  trying  to  identify  the  writers  upon  this  ground,  been 
compelled  to  own  a  corresponding  difference  of  matter  and  substantial  indi- 
cations of  a  later  age  than  that  of  Isaiah,  the  critical  process,  although  still 
inconclusive,  would  at  least  have  been  specious,  and  the  difficulty  of  defence 
proportionally  greater.  But  what  is  the  true  state  of  the  case  ?  Eichhom 
and  Bertholdt,  though  disposed  to  assume  not  only  a  later  date  but  a 
plurality  of  authors,  could  find  nothing  to  sustain  this  assumption  in  the 
language  of  the  book  itself.  Augusti,  who  occupied  the  same  ground,  went 
so  far  as  to  account  for  the  traditional  incorporation  of  these  chapters  with 
Isaiah  from  their  perfect  imitation  of  his  style  and  manner.  Rosenmiiller 
dwells  altogether  on  the  first  objection  drawn  from  the  allusions  to  the 
Babvlonish  Exile.  Even  Gesenius  admits  that  the  peculiarities  of  this  class 
are  less  numerous  than  might  have  been  expected,  but  succeeds  in  specifying 
some  which  had  been  overlooked.  From  that  time  the  discoveiy  (for  such 
it  may  well  be  termed)  of  these  philological  diversities  has  been  in  constant 
and  accelerated  progress.  Even  Maurer,  who  is  commonly  so  sparing  of 
details,  adds  to  the  black  list  several  particulars.  Hitzig  enlarges  it  still 
further,  but  unluckily  admits  that  some  of  the  expressions  which  he  notes 
are  not  to  be  found  either  in  the  earlier  or  later  books.  Ewald  as  usual 
supplies  the  want  of  detailed  proofs  by  authoritative  affirmations.  Umbreit 
considers  the  work  done  already,  and  decUnes  attempting  to  refute  Heng- 
stenberg  and  Kleinert  as  a  work  of  supererogation.    But  this  forbearance  is 


INTR  OB  UCTION.  65 

abuntlantly  made  good  by  the  zeal  of  Hendewerk  aud  Knobel,  who  have 
carried  their  citation  of  neologisms  so  far,  that  little  now  seems  left  for 
their  successors  but  to  gather  the  remainder  of  the  book  by  way  of  glean- 
ings. 

But  although  the  general  course  of  this  peculiar  criticism  has  been 
onward,  there  have  not  been  wanting  certain  retrograde  movements  and 
obliquities  to  break  the  uniformity  of  progress.  Every  one  of  the  later 
writers  above  mentioned  rejects  some  of  the  examples  cited  by  his  prede- 
cessors as  irrelevant,  and  not  seldom  with  expressions  of  contempt.  But 
still  the  aggregate  has  grown,  and  by  a  further  application  of  the  same 
means  may  continue  growing,  until  the  materials  are  exhausted,  or  the 
Higher  Criticism  chooses  to  recede  from  this  extreme,  as  it  receded  five  and 
twenty  years  ago  from  that  of  Eichhorn  and  Augusti,  who  would  no  doubt 
have  looked  down  upon  the  notion  that  these  twenty- seven  chapters  were 
the  work  of  the  same  hand,  with  almost  as  much  contempt  as  on  the  old 
belief  that  this  hand  was  Isaiah's.  It  is  indeed  not  a  matter  of  conjecture 
but  of  history,  that  Eichhorn  in  the  last  edition  of  his  Introduction  finds  fault 
with  Gesenius  for  having  abandoned  the  plurality  of  authors,  and  evidently 
pities  him  as  one  who  from  excess  of  light  had  gone  back  into  darkness. 
By  a  similar  reaction  we  might  look  for  some  concession  in  favour  even  of 
Isaiah  as  the  writer  ;  but  although  such  an  expectation  need  not  be  discou- 
raged by  the  fear  of  any  scrupulous  regard  to  logic  or  consistency  among 
the  Higher  Critics,  it  is  rendered  hopeless  for  the  present  by  the  obvious 
necessity  which  it  involves  of  abandoning  their  fundamental  principle,  the 
impossibility  of  inspiration  or  prophetic  foresight.  For  to  this,  as  the  original, 
the  chief,  aud  I  had  almost  said  the  only  ground  of  the  rejection  of  these 
chapters,  we  are  still  brought  back  from  every  survey  of  the  arguments  by 
which  it  is  defended.  The  obvious  deduction  from  the  sketch  which  has 
been  given  of  the  progress  of  discovery  in  this  department  is,  that  the 
philological  objection  would  have  slept  for  ever,  had  it  not  become  absolutely 
necessary  to  secure  the  rejection  of  a  book,  which,  if  genuine,  carried  on  its 
face  the  clearest  proofs  of  inspiration. 

Be  it  remembered,  then,  that  the  rejection  of  these  chapters  was  not 
forced  upon  the  critics  by  a  palpable  diversity  of  style  and  diction,  but  that 
such  diversities  were  hunted  up,  laboriously  and  gradually  brought  to  hght, 
in  order  to  justify  the  previous  rejection.  By  parity  of  reasoning  it  may  be 
foreseen  that  whoever  cannot  be  convinced  of  the  reality  of  inspiration,  will 
consider  these  detailed  proofs  of  later  date  conclusive;  while  the  reader  who 
knows  better,  or  at  least  has  no  misgivings  upon  that  point,  will  as  certainly 
pronounce  them  '  trifles  light  as  air.'  If  we  gain  nothing  more  by  this 
investigation,  it  is  at  least  satisfactory  to  know  that  all  depends  upon  a  fore- 
gone conclusion,  and  that  as  to  faith  in  such  things  no  less  than  in  higher 
matters,  he  that  hath,  receiveth,  and  from  him  that  hath  not,  shall  be  taken 
even  that  which  he  hath. 

The  objection  drawn  from  other  more  indefinite  diversities  of  tone  and 
manner,  such  as  a  more  flowing  style  and  frequent  repetitions,  is  so  far  from 
having  any  force,  that  the  absence  of  these  difierences  would  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  be  well  adapted  to  excite  suspicion.  In  other  words, 
Isaiah  writing  at  a  later  period  of  life,  and  when  withdrawn  from  active 
labour,  with  his  view  directed  not  to  the  present  or  a  proximate  futurity, 
but  one  more  distant,  and  composing  not  a  series  of  detached  discourses, 
but  a  continuous  unbroken  prophecy,  not  only  may,  but  must  have  differed 

VOL.  I.  E 


66  INTR  OD  UCTIOK 

from  his  former  self  as  much  as  these  two  parts  of  the  collection  differ  from 
each  other.  This  antecedent  probability  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that 
similar  causes  have  produced  a  still  greater  difference  in  some  of  the  most 
celebrated  writers,  ancient  and  modern,  who  exhibit  vastly  more  unlikeness 
to  themselves  in  different  parts  of  their  acknowledged  writings  than  the  most 
microscopic  criticism  has  been  able  to  detect  between  the  tone  or  manner 
of  Isaiah's  Earlier  and  Later  Prophecies. 

The  only  other  objections  to  the  genuineness  of  these  chapters  which  ap- 
pear to  deserve  notice  are  those  derived  from  the  silence  or  the  testimony 
of  the  other  books.  That  these  are  not  likely  to  do  more  than  confirm  the 
conclusions  previously  reached  on  one  side  or  the  other,  may  be  gathered 
from  the  fact  that  they  are  urged  with  equal  confidence  on  both  sides  of  the 
question.  Thus  Gesenius  argues  that  if  these  later  chapters  had  been  known 
to  Jeremiah,  he  would  have  appealed  to  them  in  self- vindication,  as  he  did 
to  Micah.  On  the  other  hand,  Hengstenberg  alleges  that  by  parity  of  reason- 
ing, Micah  iv.  10  could  not  have  been  extant,  or  the  enemies  of  Jeremiah 
•would  have  quoted  it  against  him.  At  the  same  time,  he  maintains  that 
there  are  ob\'ious  traces  of  these  chapters  in  the  writings  of  that  prophet. 
The  truth  is,  that  the  advocates  on  both  sides  first  determine  which  is  the 
older  writer,  and  then  explain  the  appearances  of  quotation  or  allusion  accord- 
ingly. The  same  is  true  of  similar  appearances  in  Nahum,  Zephaniah,  and 
Habakkuk,  which  Hitzig  cites  as  proofs  of  imitation  on  the  part  of  the  Pseudo- 
Isaiah,  while  Havernick  claims  them  all  as  proofs  of  his  priority.  It  is  a  very 
important  observation  of  the  last  mentioned  writer,  that  the  influence  of 
Isaiah  on  these  later  prophets  is  not  to  be  estimated  by  detached  expressions, 
but  by  more  pervading  indications,  which  he  thinks  are  clearly  perceptible 
throughout  the  writings  both  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel. 

As  samples  of  the  arguments  in  favour  of  their  genuineness  drawn  from  the 
same  quarter,  maybe  cited,  Zech.  vii.  4-12,  where  "the  former  Prophets," 
who  cried  in  the  name  of  Jehovah  to  the  people  "when  Jerusalem  was 
inhabited  and  in  prosperity,"  must  include  the  writer  of  these  chapters.  In 
reference  to  all  these  minor  arguments,  however,  it  will  be  felt  by  every  reader 
that  they  have  no  practical  effect,  except  to  corroborate  the  main  ones  which 
have  been  discussed,  and  with  which  they  must  stand  or  fall. 

Enough  has  now  been  said  to  shew  that  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for 
rejecting  the  traditional  ascription  of  these  chapters  to  Isaiah.  Let  us  now 
turn  the  tables,  and  inquire  what  objections  lie  against  the  contrary  hypo- 
thesis. These  objections  may  be  all  reduced  to  this,  that  the  oblivion  of 
the  author's  name  and  history  is  more  inexplicable,  not  to  say  incredible, 
than  anything  about  the  other  doctrine  can  be  to  a  believer  in  prophetic 
inspiration.  This  is  a  difficulty  which  no  ingenuity  has  ever  yet  been  able 
to  sui-mount.  That  a  writer  confessedly  of  tlie  highest  genius,  li^dng  at  one 
■of  the  most  critical  junctures  in  the  history  of  Israel,  when  the  word  of  God 
began  to  be  precious  and  prophetic  inspiration  rare,  should  have  produced 
such  a  series  of  prophecies  as  this,  with  such  effects  upon  the  exiles  and 
even  upon  Cjtus  as  tradition  ascribes  to  them,  and  then  have  left  them  to 
the  admiration  of  all  future  ages,  without  so  much  as  a  trace  of  his  own  per- 
sonality about  them,  is  a  phenomenon  of  literary  history  compai-ed  with 
which  the  mystery  of  Jimius  is  as  nothing.  It  would  be  so  even  if  we  had 
no  remains  of  the  same  period  to  compare  with  these ;  but  how  immensely 
is  the  improbabihty  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  the  other  prophets  of  the 
exile,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  are  not  only  well  known  and 
easily  identified,  but  minutely  accurate  in  the  chronological  specifications 


INTRODUCTION.  67 

of  tlieir  prophecief?,  a  feature  absolutely  wanting  in  these  chapters,  though 
alleged  to  be  the  work  of  a  contemporary  writer.  It  is  in  vain  to  say,  with 
Ewald,  that  the  suppression  of  the  author's  name  and  the  oblivion  of  his 
person  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  times, 
when  the  other  writings  of  those  times  still  extant  not  only  fail  to  prove  what 
is  alleged,  but  prove  the  veiy  opposite. 

Even  this,  however,  though  sufficiently  incredible,  is  still  not  all  we  are 
required  to  beheve  :  for  we  must  also  gi'ant  that  these  anonymous  though 
admirable  writings  were  attached  to  those  of  a  prophet  who  flourished  in 
the  preceding  century,  and  with  whose  productions  they  are  said  to  have 
scarcely  any  thing  in  common,  nay,  that  this  mysterious  combination  took 
place  so  early  as  to  lie  beyond  the  oldest  tradition  of  the  Hebrew  Canon, 
and  was  so  bHndly  acquiesced  in  from  the  first  that  not  the  faintest  intima- 
tion of  another  author  or  another  origin  was  ever  heard  of  for  two  thousand 
years,  when  the  Higher  Criticism  first  discovered  that  the  prophecies  in 
question  were  the  work  of  many  authors,  and  then  (no  less  infaUibly)  that 
they  were  really  the  work  of  only  one,  but  (still  infallibly)  that  this  one 
could  not  be  Isaiah  ! 

It  is  in  vain  that  the  Germans  have  endeavoured  to  evade  this  fatal 
obstacle  by  childish  suppositious  about  big  rolls  and  httle  rolls,  or  by  citing 
cases  of  concealment  or  oblivion  wholly  dissimilar  and  far  less  wonderful,  or 
by  negligently  saying  that  we  are  not  bound  to  account  for  the  fact,  provided 
we  can  prove  it ;  as  if  the  proof  were  not  dependent  in  a  great  degree  upon 
the  possibility  of  accounting  for  it,  or  as  if  the  only  business  of  the  Higher 
Critics  were  to  tie  knots  which  neither  we  nor  they  can  untie.  The  question 
here  at  issue  only  needs  to  be  presented  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind, 
and  especially  of  those  who  are  accustomed  to  weigh  evidence  in  real  life,  to 
be  immediately  disposed  of  by  the  prompt  decision  that  the  modern  hypo- 
thesis is  utterly  incredible,  and  that  nothing  could  make  it  appear  otherwise 
to  any  man  acquainted  with  the  subject,  but  an  uTcsistible  desire  to  destroy 
a  signal  proof  and  instance  of  prophetic  inspiration. 

To  this  intrinsic  want  of  credibility  now  add,  as  positive  considerations, 
the  ancient  and  uniform  tradition  of  the  Jews  ;  the  testimony  of  the  general 
title,  which  must  be  regarded  as  inclusive  of  these  chapters,  in  the  absence 
of  all  countervailing  evidence ;  the  influence  exerted  by  these  prophecies, 
according  to  Josephus,  on  Cyrus  and  the  Restoration,  implying  their  antiquity 
and  previous  notoriety ;  the  recognition  of  the  whole  book  as  Isaiah's  by 
the  son  of  Sirach  (xlviii.  22-25) ;  and  the  indiscriminate  citation  of  its 
difi"erent  parts  in  the  New  Testament. 

Again,  to  these  external  testimonies  may  be  added,  as  internal  proofs, 
the  writer's  constant  representation  of  himself  as  living  before  some  of  the 
events  which  he  describes,  and  as  knowing  them  by  inspiration  ;  his  repeated 
claim  to  have  predicted  Cyrus  and  the  Restoration,  long  before  the  first 
appearance  of  those  events  ;  the  obvious  allusions  to  Jerusalem  and  Judah 
as  the  wi'iter's  home,  to  the  temple  and  the  ritual  as  still  subsisting,  and  to 
idolatry  as  practised  by  the  people,  which  the  Higher  Critics  can  evade 
only  by  asserting  that  the  Jews  did  not  cease  to  be  idolaters  in  Babylon  ; 
the  historical  allusions  to  the  state  of  the  world  with  which  the  writer  was 
famihar,  precisely  similar  to  those  in  the  genuine  Isaiah  ;  the  very  structure 
of  the  prophecies  relating  to  the  exile,  clear  enough  to  be  distinctly  verified, 
and  yet  not  so  minute  as  a  contemporary  writer  must  have  made  them ; 
and  lastly,  the  identity  of  Messiah  here  described  with  the  Messiah  of  the 
undisputed  prophecies. 


G8  IXTRODUCTION. 

It  is  perhaps  impossible  for  any  writer  on  this  subject  to  do  full  justice 
to  the  adverse  arguments,  especially  to  those  of  a  minor  and  auxiliary  cha- 
racter. This  is  the  less  to  be  regretted,  because  every  fresh  discussion  of 
the  subject  makes  it  more  and  more  apparent  that  the  question  really  at 
issue  is  not  whether  either  party  has  established  its  position  by  direct  proofs, 
but  whether  it  has  furnished  the  other  with  sufficient  reasons  for  abandoning 
its  own.  If  the  Higher  Critics  can  find  nothing  in  the  arguments  alleged 
against  them  to  make  inspiration  and  prophetic  foresight  credible,  they  have 
certainly  done  still  less  to  drive  us  from  our  position,  that  Isaiah's  having 
written  this  book  is  unspeakably  more  probable  than  any  other  supposi- 
tion. 

Having  now  traced  the  history  of  the  criticisvi  of  these  prophecies,  it  may 
not  be  amiss  to  look  at  that  of  their  interjvciation,  not  through  the  medium 
of  minute  chronological  or  bibliographical  details,  but  by  exhibiting  the 
several  theories,  or  schools  of  exegesis,  which  at  different  times,  or  at  the 
same  time,  have  exerted  an  important  influence  on  the  intei*pretation  of  these 
chapters. 

The  first  of  these  proceeds  upon  the  supposition  that  these  Later  Pro- 
phecies have  reference  throughout  to  the  New  Dispensation  and  the  Christian 
Church,  including  its  whole  history,  with  more  or  less  distinctness,  from  the 
advent  of  Christ  to  the  end  of  the  world,  This  is  a  favourite  doctrine  of  the 
Fathers  who  have  WTitten  on  Isaiah,  to  wit,  Cyril,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  of 
some  modern  ^Titers,  among  whom  the  most  distinguished  is  Cocceius.  The 
difference  between  those  who  maintain  it  respects  chiefly  the  degree  of  fulness 
and  consistency  with  which  they  carry  out  their  general  idea,  some  admitting 
much  more  frequently  than  others  the  occasional  occurrence  of  predictions 
which  were  verified  befoi-e  the  Advent. 

This  system  of  prophetic  exegesis  is  founded,  to  a  great  extent,  on  the 
assumption  that  the  Book  of  Revelation  was  designed  to  be  a  key  to  the 
meaning  of  the  ancient  prophecies,  and  not  a  series  of  new  predictions,  often 
more  enigmatical  than  any  of  the  others.  Because  Babylon  is  there  named 
as  a  power  still  existing  and  still  threatened  with  destruction,  it  was  inferred 
that  the  name  must  be  symbolical  in  Isaiah  likewise,  or  at  least  that  it 
might  be  so  explained  at  the  interpreter's  discretion.  This  opened  an  illimit- 
able field  of  conjecture  and  invention,  each  interpreter  pursuing  his  own 
method  of  determining  the  corresponding  facts  in  Church  History,  without 
any  settled  rule  to  guide  or  to  control  him. 

The  extravagant  conclusions  often  reached  in  this  way,  and  the  general 
uncertainty  imparted  to  the  whole  work  of  interpretation,  together  with  the 
seeming  incorrectness  of  the  principle  assumed  in  regard  to  the  Apocalypse, 
led  many,  and  particularly  those  in  whom  the  understanding  strongly  pre- 
dominated over  the  imagination,  to  reject  this  theory  in  favour  of  its  opposite, 
viz.,  that  the  main  subject  of  these  chapters  must  be  sought  as  fixr  as  pos- 
sible before  the  advent,  and  as  a  necessary  consequence  either  in  the  period 
of  the  Babylonian  Exile,  or  in  that  of  the  Syrian  domination,  with  the 
periods  of  reaction  which  succeeded  them  respectively,  since  it  was  only 
these  that  furnished  events  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  be  the  subject  of  such 
grand  predictions. 

It  is  e%'ident  at  once  that  both  these  theories  involve  some  truth,  and 
that  their  application  must  evolve  the  true  sense  of  some  passages.  The 
fatal  vice  of  both  is  their  exclusiveness.  The  unbiassed  reader  of  Isaiah 
can  no  more  be  persuaded  that  he  never  speaks  of  the  New  Dispensation 
than  that  he  never  speaks  of  the  Old.     After  both  systems  had  been  pushed 


INTRODUCTION.  69 

to  an  extreme,  it  was  found  necessary  to  devise  some  method  of  conciliating 
and  combining  them. 

The  lii-st  and  rudest  means  employed  for  this  end,  even  by  some  of  the 
most  strenuous  adherents  of  the  two  extreme  hypotheses,  when  forced  at 
times  to  grant  themselves  a  dispensation  from  the  rigorous  ecforcement  of 
their  own  rule,  was  to  assume  arbitrarily  a  change  of  subject  when  it  ap- 
peared necessary,  and  to  make  the  Prophet  skip  from  Babylon  to  Rome, 
aud  from  the  Maccabees  to  Doomsday,  as  they  found  convenient.  This 
arbitrary  mixture  of  the  theories  is  often  perpetrated  by  Cocceius,  and 
occasionally  even  by  Vitringa  ;  neither  of  whom  seems  to  think  it  neces- 
sary to  subject  the  application  of  the  prophecies  to  any  general  principle, 
or  to  account  for  it  in  any  other  way  than  by  alleging  that  it  suits  the  text 
and  context. 

A  more  artificial  method  of  combining  both  hypotheses  is  that  of  Grotius, 
whose  interpretation  of  these  prophecies  appears  to  be  governed  by  two 
maxims  ;  fii'st,  that  they  all  relate  to  subjects  and  events  before  the  time  of 
Christ ;  and  secondly,  that  these  are  often  types  of  something  afterwards 
developed.  What  renders  this  kind  of  interpretation  unsatisfactory,  is  the 
feeling  which  it  seldom  fails  to  generate,  that  the  text  is  made  to  mean  too 
much,  or  rather  too  many  things  ;  that  if  one  of  the  senses  really  belongs 
to  it,  the  other  is  superfluous  :  but,  above  all,  that  the  nexus  of  the  two  is 
insuificient ;  and  although  a  gradual  or  even  a  repeated  execution  of  a 
promise  or  a  threatening  is  conceivable,  it  seems  unreasonable  that  the  in- 
terpreter should  have  the  discretionary  right  of  saying  that  the  same 
passage  means  one  thing  in  ancient  times  and  an  altogether  difi'erent  thing 
in  modern  times ;  that  the  same  words,  for  example,  are  directly  descrip- 
tive of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  and  Antichrist,  of  Judas  Maccabaeus  and 
Gustavus  Adolphus. 

A  third  mode  of  reconciling  these  two  theories  of  interpretation  is  the  one 
pursued  by  Lowth,  and  still  more  successfully  by  Hengstenberg.  It  rests 
upon  the  supposition  that  the  nearer  and  the  more  remote  reahzation  of  the 
same  prophetic  picture  might  be  presented  to  the  Prophet  simultaneously 
or  in  immediate  succession  ;  so  that,  for  example,  the  deliverance  from 
Babylon  by  Cyrus  insensibly  merges  into  a  gi'eater  dehverance  from  sin  and 
ruin  by  Christ.  The  principle  assumed  in  this  ingenious  doctrine  is  as  just 
as  it  is  beautiful,  and  of  the  highest  practical  importance  in  intei-pretation. 
The  only  objection  to  its  general  application  in  the  case  before  us  is,  that  it 
concedes  the  constant  reference  to  Babylon  throughout  this  book,  and  only 
seeks  to  reconcile  this  fundamental  fact  with  the  wider  application  of  the 
Prophecies. 

It  still  remains  to  be  considered,  therefore,  whether  any  general  h}-po- 
thesis  or  scheme  can  be  constructed,  which,  without  giving  imdue  promi- 
nence to  any  of  the  topics  introduced,  without  restricting  general  expressions 
to  specific  objects,  without  assuming  harsh  transitions,  needless  double 
senses,  or  imaginary  typical  relations,  shall  do  justice  to  the  unity  and 
homogeneousness  of  the  composition,  and  satisfactorily  reconcile  the  large- 
ness and  variety  of  its  design  with  the  particular  allusions  and  predictions, 
which  can  only  be  eliminated  from  it  by  a  forced  and  artificial  exegesis. 

Such  a  hj7)othesis  is  that  propounded  at  the  beginning  of  this  second 
part  of  the  Introduction,  and  assumed  as  the  basis  of  the  following  Exposi- 
tion. It  supposes  the  main  subject  of  these  Prophecies,  or  rather  of  this 
Prophecy,  to  be  the  Chm-ch  or  people  of  God,  considered  in  its  members 
and  its  Head,  in  its  design,  its  origin,  its  progress,  its  vicissitudes,   itj 


70  INTR  OJJ  UCTIOX. 

consummation,  in  its  various  relations  to  God  and  to  the  world,  botli  as  a 
field  of  battle  and  a  field  of  labour,  an  enemy's  country  to  be  conquered, 
and  an  inheritance  to  be  secured. 

Within  the  limits  of  this  general  descrii^lion  it  is  easy  to  distinguish,  as 
alternate  objects  of  prophetic  vision,  the  two  great  phases  of  the  Church  on 
earth,  its  state  of  bondage  and  its  state  of  freedom,  its  ceremonial  and  its 
spiritual  aspect ;  in  a  word,  what  we  usually  call  the  Old  and  New  Economy 
or  Dispensation.  Both  are  continually  set  before  us,  but  with  this  observ- 
able distinction  in  the  mode  of  presentation,  that  the  first  gi'eat  period  is 
described  by  individual  specific  strokes,  the  second  by  its  outlines  as  a  de- 
finite yet  undivided  whole.  To  the  great  turning-point  between  the  two 
dispensations  the  prophetic  view  appears  to  reach  with  clear  discrimination 
of  the  intervening  objects,  but  beyond  that  to  take  all  in  at  a  single  glance. 
Within  the  boundaries  first  mentioned,  the  eye  passes  with  a  varied  uni- 
formity from  one  salient  point  to  another  ;  but  beyond  them  it  contemplates 
the  end  and  the  beginning,  not  as  distinct  pictui'es,  but  as  necessary  elements 
of  one.  This  difference  might  naturally  be  expected  in  a  Prophecy  belong- 
ing to  the  Old  Dispensation,  while  in  one  belonging  to  the  New  we  should 
as  naturally  look  for  the  same  definiteness  and  minuteness  as  the  older 
prophets  used  in  their  descriptions  of  the  older  times ;  and  this  condition 
is  completely  answered  by  the  Book  of  Revelation. 

If  this  be  so,  it  throws  a  new  light  on  the  more  specific  Prophecies  of  this 
part  of  Isaiah,  such  as  those  relating  to  the  Babylonish  Exile,  which  are 
then  to  be  regarded,  not  as  the  main  subject  of  the  Prophecy,  but  only  as 
prominent  figures  in  the  great  prophetic  picture,  some  of  which  were  to 
the  Prophet's  eye  already  past,  and  some  still  future.  In  this  respect  the 
Prophecy  is  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  History  of  Israel,  in  which  the 
Exile  and  the  Restoration  stand  conspicuously  forth  as  one  of  the  great 
crititical  conjunctures  which  at  distant  intervals  prepared  the  way  for  the 
removal  of  the  ancient  system,  and  yet  secured  its  continued  operation  till 
the  time  of  that  removal  should  arrive.  How  far  the  same  thing  may  be  said 
of  other  periods  which  occupy  a  like  place  in  the  history  of  the  Jews,  such 
as  the  period  of  the  Maccabees  or  Hasmonean  Princes,  is  a  question  rendered 
doubtful  by  the  silence  of  the  prophecy  itself,  and  by  the  absence  of  any 
indications  which  are  absolutely  unambiguous.  The  specific  reference  of 
certain  passages  to  this  important  epoch  both  by  Grotius  and  Vitringa,  has 
no  antecedent  probability  against  it ;  but  we  cannot  with  the  same  unhesi- 
tating confidence  assert  such  an  allusion  as  we  can  in  the  case  of  Babylon 
and  Cyrus,  which  are  mentioned  so  expressly  and  repeatedly.  It  may  be 
that  historical  discovery,  the  march  of  which  has  been  so  rapid  in  our  own 
day,  will  enable  us,  or  those  who  shall  come  after  us,  to  set  this  question 
finally  at  rest.  In  the  mean  time,  it  is  safest  to  content  ourselves  with  care- 
fully distinguishing  between  the  old  and  new  economy,  as  represented  on 
the  Prophet's  canvass,  without  attempting  to  determine  by  conjecture  what 
particular  events  are  predicted  even  iu  the  former,  any  further  than  we  have 
the  certain  guidance  of  the  Prophecy  itself. 

As  to  a  similar  attempt  in  reference  to  the  New  Dispensation,  it  is  wholly 
inconsistent  with  the  view  which  we  have  taken  of  the  structure  of  these 
Prophecies,  and  which  regards  them,  not  as  particular  descriptions  of  this 
or  that  event  in  later  times,  but  as  a  general  description  of  the  Church  iu 
its  emancipated  state,  or  of  the  reign  of  -the  Messiah,  not  at  one  time  or 
another,  but  throughout  its  whole  course,  so  that  the  faint  light  of  the  dawn 
is  blended  with  the  s2;low  of  sunset  and  the  blaze  of  noou.     The  form  under 


INTRODUCTION.  71 

which  the  Reign  of  Christ  is  here  presented  to  and  by  the  Prophet,  is  that 
of  a  glorious  emancipation  from  the  bondage  and  the  darkness  of  the  old 
economy,  in  representing  which  he  naturally  dwells  with  more  minuteness 
upon  that  part  of  the  picture  which  is  nearest  to  himself,  while  the  rest  is 
bathed  in  a  flood  of  light ;  to  penetrate  beyond  which,  or  to  discriminate  the 
objects  hid  beneath  its  dazzling  veil,  formed  no  part  of  this  Prophet's  mission, 
but  was  reserved  for  the  prophetic  revelations  of  the  New  Testament. 

It  is  not,  however,  merely  to  the  contrast  of  the  two  dispensations  that 
the  Prophet's  eye  is  here  directed.  It  would  indeed  have  been  impossible 
to  bring  this  contrast  clearly  into  view  without  a  prominent  exhibition  of 
the  great  event  by  which  the  transition  was  effected,  and  of  the  great  person 
who  efiected  it.  That  person  is  the  servant  of  Jehovah,  elsewhere  spoken 
of  as  his  anointed  or  Messiah,  and  both  here  and  elsewhere  represented  as 
combining  the  prophetic,  regal,  and  sacerdotal  characters  suggested  by  that 
title.  The  specific  relation  which  he  here  sustains  to  the  Israel  of  God,  is 
that  of  the  Head  to  a  living  Body  ;  so  that  in  many  cases  what  is  said  of 
him  appears  to  be  true  wholly  or  in  part  of  them,  as  forming  one  complex 
person,  an  idea  perfectly  accordant  with  the  doctrines  and  the  images  of  the 
New  Testament.  It  appears  to  have  been  fu-st  clearly  stated  in  the  dictum 
of  an  ancient  writer  quoted  by  Augustine  :  "  De  Christo  et  Corpore  ejus 
Ecclesia  tanquam  de  una  persona  in  Scriptura  Sffipius  mentionem  fieri,  cui 
qufedam  tribuuntur  quae  tantum  in  Caput,  qujedam  qua3  tantum  in  Corpus 
competunt,  quaedam  vero  in  utrumque."  There  is  nothing  in  these  Pro- 
phecies more  striking  or  peculiar  than  the  sublime  position  occupied  by 
this  colossal  figure,  standing  between  the  Church  of  the  Old  and  that  of 
the  New  Testament,  as  a  mediator,  an  interpreter,  a  bond  of  union,  and  a 
common  Head. 

If  this  be  a  correct  view  of  the  structui'e  of  these  prophecies,  nothing  can 
be  more  erroneous  or  unfriendly  to  correct  interpretation,  than  the  idea, 
which  appears  to  form  the  basis  of  some  expositions,  that  the  primary  object 
in  the  Prophet's  view  is  Israel  as  a  race  or  nation,  and  that  its  spiritual  or 
ecclesiastical  relations  are  entirely  adventitious  and  subordinate.  The 
natural  result  of  this  erroneous  supposition  is  a  constant  disposition  to  give 
every  thing  a  national  and  local  sense.  This  is  specially  the  case  with  re- 
spect to  the  names  so  frequently  occurring,  Zion,  Jerusalem,  and  Judah  ;  all 
which,  according  to  this  view  of  the  matter,  must  be  understood,  wherever 
it  is  possible,  as  meaning  nothing  more  than  the  hill,  the  city,  and  the 
land,  which  they  originally  designate.  This  error  has  even  been  pushed 
by  some  to  the  irrational  extreme  of  making  Israel  as  a  race  the  object  of 
the  promises,  after  their  entire  separation  from  the  Chm'ch,  and  their  re- 
duction for  the  time  being  to  the  same  position  with  the  sons  of  Ishmael 
and  of  Esau.  That  this  view  should  be  taken  b}'  the  modern  Jews,  in 
vindication  of  their  own  continued  unbelief,  is  not  so  strange  as  its  adoption 
hj  some  Christian  writers,  even  in  direct  opposition  to  their  own  interpre- 
tation of  former  prophecies,  almost  identical  in  form  and  substance.  The 
specifications  of  this  general  charge  will  be  fully  given  in  the  Exposition. 

The  claim  of  this  mode  of  interpretation  to  the  praise  of  strictness  and 
exactness  is  a  false  one,  if  the  Israel  of  prophecy  is  not  the  nation  as  such 
merely,  but  the  nation  as  the  temporary  frame-work  of  the  Chui'ch,  and  if 
the  promises  addressed  to  it,  in  forms  derived  from  this  transitory  state, 
were  nevertheless  meant  to  be  perpetual,  and  must  be  therefore  independent 
of  all  temporary  local  restrictions.  The  true  sense  of  the  prophecies  in  this 
respect  cannot  be  more  strongly  or  explicitly  set  forth  than  in  the  words  of 


72  INTR  OB  UCTION. 

the  apostle,  when  he  says  that  "  God  hath  not  cast  away  his  people  which 
he  foreknew  :"  "  Israel  hath  not  obtained  that  which  he  seeketh  for,  but 
the  election  hath  obtained  it,  and  the  rest  were  blinded :"  "  not  as  though 
the  word  of  God  hath  taken  none  effect,  for  they  are  not  all  Israel  which  are 
of  Israel.' 

One  eflfect  of  the  correct  view  of  this  matter  is  to  do  away  with  vagueness 
and  uncertainty  or  random  licence  in  the  explanation  of  particular  predic- 
tions. This  requires  to  be  more  distinctly  stated,  as  at  first  view  the  effect 
may  seem  to  be  directly  opposite.  It  was  a  favourite  maxim  with  an  old 
school  of  interpreters,  of  whom  Vitringa  may  be  taken  as  the  type  and 
representative,  that  the  prophecies  should  be  explained  to  mean  as  much  as 
possible,  because  the  word  of  God  must  of  course  be  more  significant  and 
pregnant  than  the  word  of  man.  Without  disputing  the  correctness  of  the 
reason  thus  assumed,  it  may  be  granted  that  the  rule  itself  is  good  or  bad, 
in  theory  and  practice,  according  to  the  sense  in  which  it  is  received  and 
apphed.  By  the  interpreters  in  question  it  was  practically  made  to  mean, 
that  the  dignity  of  prophecy  required  the  utmost  possible  particularity  of 
application  to  specific  points  of  history,  and  the  greatest  possible  number 
and  variety  of  such  applications.  The  sincerity  with  which  the  rule  was 
recognised  and  acted  on,  in  this  sense,  is  apparent  from  the  zeal  with  which 
Vitringa  seeks  minute  historical  allusions  under  the  most  general  expres- 
sions, and  the  zest  with  which  he  piles  up  mystical  senses,  as  he  calls  them, 
on  the  top  of  literal  ones,  plainly  regarding  the  assumption  of  so  many 
senses,  not  as  a  necessary  evil,  but  as  a  desirable  advantage. 

The  evils  of  this  method  are,  however,  more  apparent  when  the  senses 
are  less  numerous,  and  the  whole  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  is  sought  in 
some  one  juncture  ;  because  then  all  other  applications  are  excluded,  whereas 
the  more  they  are  diversified  the  more  chance  is  allowed  the  reader  of  dis- 
covering the  true  generic  import  of  the  passage.  For  example,  when 
Vitringa  makes  the  Edom  of  the  prophecies  denote  the  Roman  Empire, 
and  also  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  also  the  unbelieving  Jews,  he  widens  the 
scope  of  his  interpretation  so  far  as  unwittingly  to  put  the  reader  on  the 
true  scent  of  a  comprehensive  threatening  against  the  inveterate  enemies  of 
God  and  of  his  people,  among  whom  those  specified  are  only  comprehended, 
if  at  all,  as  individual  examples.  But  when,  on  the  other  hand,  he  asserts 
that  a  particular  prophecy  received  its  whole  fulfilment  in  the  decUne  of 
Protestant  theology  and  piety  after  the  Refonuation,  he  not  only  puts  a 
meaning  on  the  passage  which  no  one  else  can  see  there  without  his  assist- 
ance, but  excludes  all  other  applications  as  irrelevant.  In  some  interpreters 
belonging  to  the  same  school,  but  inferior  to  Vitringa  both  in  learning  and 
judgment,  this  mode  of  exposition  is  connected  with  a  false  view  of  prophecy 
as  mere  prediction,  and  as  intended  solely  to  illustrate  the  divine  omniscience. 

Now,  in  aiming  to  make  everything  specific  and  precise,  this  kind  of 
exposition  renders  all  uncertain  and  indefinite,  by  l(?aving  the  particular 
events  foretold,  to  the  discretion  or  caprice  of  the  interpreter.  Where  the 
event  is  expressly  described  in  the  prophecy  itself,  as  the  conquests  of 
Cyrus  are  in  chaps,  xliv.  and  xlv,,  there  can  be  no  question  ;  it  is  only 
where  a  strict  sense  is  to  be  imposed  upon  indefinite  expressions  that  this 
evil  fruit  appears.  The  perfect  licence  of  conjecture  thus  afforded  may  be 
seen  by  comparing  two  interpreters  of  this  class,  and  observing  with  what 
confidence  the  most  incompatible  opinions  are  maintained,  neither  of  which 
would  be  suggested  by  the  language  of  the  prophecy  itself  to  any  other 
reader.   What  is  thus  dependent  upon  individual  invention,  taste,  or  fancy, 


INTRODUCTION.  73 

must  be  uncertain,  not  only  till  it  is  discovered,  but  for  ever ;  since  tbe  next 
interpreter  may  have  a  still  more  felicitous  conjecture,  or  a  still  more  in- 
genious combination,  to  supplant  the  old  one.  It  is  thus  that,  in  aiming  at 
an  unattainable  precision,  these  interpreters  have  brought  upon  themselves 
the  very  reproach  which  they  were  most  solicitous  to  shun,  that  of  vague- 
ness and  uncertainty. 

If,  instead  of  this,  we  let  the  Prophet  say  precisely  what  his  words  most 
naturally  mean,  expounded  by  the  ordinary  laws  of  human  language  and  a 
due  regard  to  tbe  immediate  context  and  to  general  usage,  without  attempt- 
ing to  make  that  specific  which  the  author  bas  made  general,  any  more  than 
to  make  general  what  he  has  made  specific,  we  shall  not  only  shun  the 
inconveniences  described,  but  facilitate  the  use  and  application  of  these 
prophecies  by  modern  readers.  Christian  interpreters,  as  we  have  seen, 
have  been  so  unwilling  to  renounce  their  interest,  and  that  of  the  Church 
generally,  in  these  ancient  promises,  encouragements,  and  warnings,  that 
tbey  have  chosen  rather  to  secure  them  by  the  cumbrous  machinery  of  alle- 
gory, anagoge,  and  accommodation.  But  if  the  same  end  may  be  gained 
without  resorting  to  such  means ;  if,  instead  of  being  tokl  to  derive  conso- 
lation from  God's  promises  addressed  to  the  Maccabees  or  to  the  Jews  in 
exile,  because  he  will  be  equally  gracious  to  ourselves,  we  are  permitted  to 
regard  a  vast  porportion  of  those  promises  as  promises  to  the  Church,  and 
the  ancient  deliverances  of  the  chosen  people  as  more  samples  or  instal- 
ments of  their  ultimate  fulfilment ;  such  a  change  in  the  relative  position  of 
the  parties  to  these  covenant  transactions,  without  any  change  in  the  matter 
of  the  covenant  itself,  may  perhaps  not  unreasonably  be  described  as 
recommending  the  method  of  interpretation  which  alone  can  make  it  pos- 
sible. An  exegesis  marked  by  these  results  is  the  genuine  and  only  reahza- 
tiou  of  the  old  idea,  in  its  best  sense,  that  tbe  word  of  God  must  mean  as 
much  as  possible.  All  this,  however,  has  respect  to  questions  which  can 
only  be  determined  by  the  slow  but  sure  test  of  a  thorough  and  detailed 
interpretation. 

Before  proceeding  to  apply  this  test,  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider 
briefly  the  arrangement  and  division  of  these  Later  Prophecies.  This  is 
not  a  question  of  mere  taste,  or  even  of  convenience,  but  one  which  may 
materially  influence  the  exposition.  Here  again  a  brief  historical  statement 
may  be  useful,  and  not  wholly  without  interest. 

The  older  writers  on  Isaiah,  being  free  from  the  influence  of  any  artificial 
theory,  and  taking  the  book  just  as  they  found  it,  treated  these  chapters  as 
a  continuous  discourse,  with  little  regard  to  the  usual  divisions  of  the  text, 
except  as  mere  facihties  for  reference. 

Vitringa's  fondness  for  exact,  and  even  formal  method,  led  him  to 
attempt  a  systematic  distribution  of  these  chapters,  similar  to  that  w^hich  he 
had  given  of  the  Earlier  Prophecies.  He  accordingly  throws  them  into 
condones  or  discourses,  and  di\ides  these  into  seclioncs,  often  coinciding  with 
the  chapters,  but  sometimes  either  longer  or  shorter.  These  subdivisions 
he  provides  with  his  favourite  apparatus  of  avali/sis,  anacrifiis,  &c.,  under 
which  heads  he  appropriates  distinct  paragraphs  to  the  description  of  the 
scope,  design,  occasion,  argument,  &c.,  of  each  section.  The  inappropriate- 
ness  of  this  method,  cumbrous  at  best,  to  these  latter  chapters,  is  betrayed 
by  the  inanity  of  many  of  the  prefaces,  which  have  the  look  of  frames  or 
cases,  without  anything  to  fill  them.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the  para- 
graphs profesf?ing  to  exhibit  the  occasion  upon  which  the  several  sections 
were  composed.     Here  the  author  not  unfrequently  is  under  the  necessity 


74  INTRODUCTION. 

of  simply  referring  to  the  preceding  chapter  us  affording  the  occasion  of 
the  next ;  an  indii-ect  concession  that  the  separation  of  the  parts,  at  least 
in  that  case,  is  gratuitous  and  artificial. 

J.  H.  and  J.  I).  Michaelis,  Lowth,  Gill,  and  other  writers  of  the  same 
period,  while  they  wholly  discard  this  cmbaiTassing  and  wearisome  machinery, 
and  content  themselves  with  the  common  division  into  chapters,  are  some- 
times chargeable  with  treating  these  too  much  as  an  original  arrangement 
of  the  author's  matter  by  himself,  and  thus  converting  the  whole  into  a 
series  of  detached  discourses.  The  same  thing  is  still  more  apparent  in  the 
popular  and  useful  works  of  Henry,  Scott,  and  others  ;  where  the  reader  is 
permitted,  if  not  taught,  to  look  upon  the  chapters  as  in  some  sense  inde- 
pendent compositions,  and  to  regard  the  first  verse  of  each  as  introducing, 
and  the  last  as  winding  up  a  complete  subject.  This  would  be  hurtful  to 
correct  interpretation,  even  if  the  chapters  were  divided  with  the  most  con- 
summate skill,  much  more  when  they  are  sometimes  the  result  of  the  most 
superficial  inspection. 

The  Higher  Critics  of  the  elder  race,  such  as  Eichhorn  and  his  followers, 
carried  out  their  idea  of  entire  corruption,  and  the  consequent  necessity  of 
total  revolution,  not  only  by  assuming  a  plurality  of  \vi-iters,  but  by  taking 
for  granted  that  their  compositions  had  been  put  together  perfectly  at  ran- 
dom, and  could  be  reduced  to  order  only  by  the  constant  practice  of  inven- 
tive ingenuity  and  critical  conjecture.  The  practical  efiects  of  this  hypothesis 
were  valuable  only  as  exhibiting  its  folly,  and  producing  a  reaction  towards 
more  reasonable  views.  As  a  specimen  of  this  school  may  be  mentioned 
Bertholdt's  distribution  of  the  prophecies,  in  which  certain  chapters  and 
parts  of  chapters  are  picked  out  and  classified  as  having  been  Avritten  before 
the  invasion  of  Babylonia  by  Cyrus,  others  after  the  invasion  but  before  the 
siege  of  Babylon,  others  during  the  siege,  others  after  the  catastrophe. 

Gesenius  holds,  in  opposition  to  this  theory,  as  we  have  seen,  the  oneness 
of  the  author  and  of  his  design.  With  respect  to  the  actual  arrangement  of 
the  book,  he  is  inclined  to  regard  it  as  original,  but  grants  it  to  be  possible 
that  some  transposition  may  have  taken  place,  and  more  particularly  that 
the  last  chapters,  as  they  now  stand,  may  be  older  than  the  first. 

Hitzig  maintains  the  strict  chronological  arrangement  of  the  chapters, 
with  the  exception  of  the  forty-seventh,  which  he  looks  upon  as  older,  but 
incorporated  with  the  others  by  the  writer  himself.  He  vilso  maintains, 
with  the  utmost  confidence,  the  oneness  of  the  composition,  and  rejects  all 
suggestions  of  interpolation  and  corruption  with  disdain.  This  departure 
from  his  method  in  the  earlier  portion  of  the  book  is  closely  connected  with 
his  wish  to  bring  the  date  of  the  prophecies  as  near  as  possible  to  that  of 
the  fulfilment.  For  the  same  reason  he  assumes  the  successive  composition 
of  the  parts  with  considerable  intervals  between  them,  dui'ing  which  he 
supposes  the  events  of  the  Persian  war  to  have  followed  one  another  and 
repeatedly  changed  the  posture  of  afl'airs,  In  addition  to  this  chronological 
arrangement  of  his  own,  Hitzig  adopts  Riickert's  threefold  division  of  the 
book  into  three  nearly  equal  parts,  as  indicated  by  the  closing  words  of 
chaps,  xlviii.  and  Ivii.  Ewald  adopts  the  same  view  of  the  unity  and  gradual 
production  of  these  prophecies,  but  with  a  difterent  distribution  of  the  parts. 
Chaps,  xl. -xlviii.  he  describes  as  the  first  attempt,  exhibiting  the  freshest 
inspiration  ;  chaps,  xlix.— Ix.  as  somewhat  later,  with  a  pause  at  the  end 
of  chap.  Ivii.  To  these  he  adds  two  postscripts  or  appendixes,  an  earlier 
one  ending  chap.  Ixiii.  G,  and  a  later  one  extending  to  the  close  of  the  book. 
Hendewerk  divides  the  whole  into  two  parallel  series,  the  first  ending 


INTRODUCTION.  75 

with  the  forty-fifth  chapter.  He  rejects  Kiickert's  threefold  division,  as 
founded  on  an  accidental  repetition.  He  also  rejects  Hitzig's  theory  as  to 
chap,  xlvii.,  but  goes  still  further  in  determining  the  precise  stages  of  the 
composition  and  tracing  in  the  prophecy  the  principal  events  in  the  history 
of  Cyrus.  Ivnobel  divides  the  whole  into  three  parts,  chaps,  xl.-xlviii., 
chaps,  xlix.-lxii.,  chaps.  Ixiii.-lxvi. 

A  comparison  of  these  minute  arrangements  she^s  that  they  are  founded 
on  imaginary  illusions,  or  prompted  by  a  governing  desire  to  prove  that  the 
writer  must  have  been  contemporary  with  the  exile,  a  wish  which  here  pre- 
dominates over  the  habitual  disposition  of  these  critics  to  explain  away 
apparent  references  to  history,  rather  than  to  introduce  them  where  they 
do  not  really  exist. 

Discarding  these  imaginary  facts,  Havernick  goes  back  to  the  rational 
h^'pothesis  of  a  continuous  discourse,  either  uninterrupted  in  its  composition 
or  unaflected  in  its  structure  by  the  interruptions  which  are  now  beyond 
the  reach  of  critical  discovery,  and  for  the  same  reason  wholly  unimportant. 
This  is  substantially  the  ground  assumed  by  the  old  interpreters,  and  even 
by  Gesenius,  but  now  confirmed  by  the  utter  failure  of  all  efforts  to  estab- 
lish any  more  artificial  distribution  of  the  text.  As  to  arrangement, 
Havernick  adopts  that  of  Ruckert,  which  is  rather  poetical  than  critical, 
and  founded  on  the  similar  close  of  chaps,  xlviii.  andlvii.,  coinciding  with 
the  usual  division  into  chapters,  so  as  to  throw  nine  into  each  of  the  three 
portions.  As  an  aid  to  the  memory,  and  a  basis  of  convenient  distribution, 
this  hypothesis  may  be  adopted  without  iujury,  but  not  as  implying  that 
the  book  consists  of  three  independent  parts,  or  that  any  one  of  the  pro- 
posed divisions  can  be  satisfactorily  interpreted  apart  from  the  others.  The 
greater  the  pains  taken  to  demonstrate  such  a  structure,  the  more  forced 
and  artificial  must  the  exposition  of  the  book  become  ;  and  it  is  therefore 
best  to  regard  this  ingenious  idea  of  Riickert  as  an  aesthetic  decoration 
rather  than  an  exegetical  expedient. 

After  carefully  comparing  all  the  methods  of  division  and  arrangement 
which  have  come  to  my  knowledge,  I  am  clearly  of  opinion  that  in  this 
part  of  Scripture,  more  perhaps  than  any  other,  the  evil  to  be  shunned  is 
not  so  much  defect  as  excess ;  that  the  book  is  not  only  a  continued  but  a 
desultory  composition  ;  that  although  there  is  a  sensible  progression  in  the 
whole  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  it  cannot  be  distinctly  traced  in  every 
minor  part,  being  often  interrupted  and  obscured  by  retrocessions  and  re- 
sumptions, which,  though  governed  by  a  natural  association  in  each  case, 
are  not  reducible  to  rule  or  system.  The  conventional  division  into  chap- 
ters, viewed  as  a  mechanical  contrivance  for  facilitating  reference,  is  indis- 
pensable, and  cannot  be  materially  changed  with  any  good  eflect  at  all  pro- 
portioned to  the  inconvenience  and  confusion,  which  would  necessarily 
attend  such  a  departure  from  a  usage  long  established  and  now  universally 
familiar.  The  disadvantages  attending  it,  or  springing  from  an  injurious 
use  of  it  by  readers  and  expounders,  are  the  frequent  separation  of  parts 
which  as  really  cohere  together  as  thofe  that  are  combined,  and  the  con- 
version of  one  great  shifting  spectacle,  in  which  the  scenes  are  constantly 
succeeding  one  another  in  a  varied  order,  into  a  series  of  detached  and 
unconnected  pictures,  thi'owing  no  light  on  each  other  even  when  most 
skilfully  divided,  and  too  often  exhibiting  a  part  of  one  view  in  absurd 
juxtaposition  with  another  less  akin  to  it,  than  that  from  which  it  has  been 
violently  sundered. 

A  similar  caution  is  required  in  relation  to  the  summaries  or  prefatory 


76  IXTRODUCTIOX. 

notes  with  which  the  chapters,  in  conformity  to  usage  and  the  prevalent 
opiiiiou,  arc  provided  in  the  present  Work.  In  order  to  prevent  an  aggra- 
vation of  the  evils  just  described,  a  distinction  must  be  clearly  made  be- 
tween these  summaries,  and  logical  analysis  so  useful  in  the  study  of  an 
argumentative  context.  It  is  there  that  such  a  method  is  at  once  most  use- 
ful and  most  easy  ;  because  the  logical  nexus,  where  it  really  exists,  is  that 
which  may  be  most  successfully  detected  and  exhibited  as  well  as  most 
tenaciously  remembered.  But  in  the  case  of  an  entirely  diflerent  structure, 
and  especially  in  one  where  a  certain  cycle  of  ideas  is  repeated  often,  in  an 
order  not  prescribed  by  logic  but  by  poetical  associat'on,  there  is  no  such 
facility,  but  on  the  other  hand  a  tendency  to  sameness  and  monotony 
which  weakens  rather  than  excites  the  attention,  and  afibrds  one  of  the 
strongest  confirmations  of  the  views  already  taken  with  respect  to  the 
structure  of  the  whole  book  and  the  proper  mode  of  treating  it. 

Tlie  most  satisfactory  and  useful  method  of  surveying  the  whole  book 
with  a  view  to  the  detailed  interpretation  of  the  part  is,  in  my  opinion,  to 
obtain  a  clear  view  of  the  few  groat  themes  with  which  the  writer's  mind 
was  filled,  and  of  the  minor  topics  into  which  they  readily  resolve  them- 
selves, and  then  to  mark  their  varied  combinations  as  they  alternately 
present  themselves,  some  more  fully  and  frequently  in  one  part  of  the  book, 
some  exclusively  in  one  part,  others  with  greater  uniformity  in  all.  The 
succession  of  the  prominent  figures  will  be  pointed  out  as  we  proceed  in 
the  interpretation  of  the  several  chapters.  But  in  order  to  afford  the  reader 
every  preliminary  aid  before  attempting  the  detailed  interpretation,  I  shall 
close  with  a  brief  sj-nopsis  of  the  whole,  presenting  at  a  single  glance  its 
prominent  contents  and  the  mutual  relation  of  its  parts. 

The  prominent  objects  here  presented  to  the  Prophet's  view  are  these 
five.  1.  The  carnal  Israel,  the  Jewish  nation,  in  its  proud  self-reliance 
and  its  gross  corruption,  whether  idolatrous  or  only  hypocritical  and  for- 
mal. 2.  The  spiritual  Israel,  the  true  Church,  the  remnant  according  to 
the  election  of  gi-ace,  considered  as  the  object  of  Jehovah's  favour  and  pro- 
tection, but  at  the  same  time  as  weak  in  faith  and  apprehensive  of  destruc- 
tion. 3.  The  Babylonish  Exile  and  the  Restoration  from  it,  as  the  most 
important  intermediate  point  between  the  date  of  the  prediction  and  the 
advent  of  Messiah,  and  as  an  earnest  or  a  sample  of  Jehovah's  future  deal- 
ings with  his  people  both  in  wrath  and  mercy.  4.  The  Advent  itself,  with 
the  person  and  character  of  Him  who  was  to  come  for  the  deliverance  of 
his  people,  not  only  from  eternal  ruin,  but  from  temporal  bondage,  and 
their  introduction  into  "  glorious  liberty."  5.  The  character  of  this  new 
condition  of  the  Church  or  of  the  Christian  Dispensation,  not  considered  in 
its  elements  but  as  a  whole  ;  not  in  the  way  of  chronological  succession, 
but  at  one  view  ;  not  so  much  in  itself,  as  in  contrast  with  the  temporary 
system  that  preceded  it. 

These  are  the  subjects  of  the  Prophet's  whole  discourse,  and  may  be 
described  as  present  to  his  mind  throughout ;  but  the  degree  in  which  they 
are  respectively  made  prominent  is  different  in  different  parts.  The 
attempts  which  have  been  made  to  shew  that  they  are  taken  up  successively 
and  treated  one  by  one,  are  unsuccessful,  because  inconsistent  with  the 
frequent  repetition  and  recuri'cnce  of  the  same  theme.  The  order  is  not 
that  of  strict  succession,  but  of  alternation.  It  is  still  true,  however,  that 
the  relative  prominence  of  these  great  themes  is  far  from  being  constant. 
As  a  general  fact,  it  may  be  said  that  their  relative  positions  in  this  respect 
answer  to  those  which  thev  hold  in  the  enumeration  above  pciven.     The 


INTRODUCTION.  77 

character  of  Israel,  both  as  a  nation  ,ancl  a  church,  is  chiefly  prominent  in 
the  beginning,  the  Exile  and  the  Advent  in  the  middle,  the  contrast  and  the 
change  of  dispensations  at  the  end.  With  this  general  conception  of  the 
Prophecy,  the  reader  can  have  very  little  difficulty  in  percei\ing  the  unity 
of  the  discourse,  and  marking  its  transitions  for  himself,  even  without  the 
aid  of  such  an  abstract  as  the  following. 

The  form  in  which  the  Prophecy  begins  has  been  determined  by  its  in- 
timate connection  with  the  threatening  in  the  thirty-ninth  chapter.     To 
assure  the  Israel  of  God,  or  true  Church,  that  the  national  judgments  which 
had  been  denounced  should  not  destroy  it,  is  the  Prophet's  purpose  in  the 
fortieth  chapter,  and  is  executed  by  exhibiting  Jehovah's  power,  and  willing- 
ness, and  fixed  determination  to  protect  and  save  his  own  elect.     In  the 
forty-first,  his  power  and  omniscience  are  contrasted  with  the  impotence  of 
idols,  and  illustrated  by  an  individual  example.     In  the  forty-second,  the 
person  of  the  great  Deliverer  is  introduced,  the  nature  of  his  influence 
described,  the  relation  of  his  people  to  himself  defined,  and  their  mission  or 
vocation  as  enlighteners  of  the  world  explained.     The  forty-third  completes 
this  exposition  by  exhibiting  the  true  design  of  Israel's  election  as  a  people, 
its  entire  independence  of  all  merit  in  themselves,  and  sole  dependence  on 
the  sovereign  will  of  God.     In  the  forty-fourth  the  argument  against  idolatry 
is  amplified  and  urged,  and  the  divine  sufficiency  and  faithfulness  exempli- 
fied by  a  historical  allusion  to  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  and  a  prophetic  one 
to  the  deliverance  from  Babylon,  in  which  last  Cyrus  is  expressly  named. 
The  last  part  of  this  chapter  should  have  been  connected  with  the  first  part 
of  the  forty-fifth,  in  which  the  name  of  Catus  is  repeated,  and  his  conquests 
represented  as  an  efiect  of  God's  omnipotence,  and  the  prediction  as  a  proof 
of  his  omniscience, — both  which  attributes  are  then  again  contrasted  with  the 
impotence  and  senselessness  of  idols.     The  same  comjDarison  is  still  con- 
tinued in  the  forty-sixth,  with  special  reference  to  the  false  gods  of  Babylon, 
as  utterly  unable  to  deliver  either  their  worshippers  or  themselves.     In  the 
forty-seventh  the  description  is  extended  to  the  Babylonian  government,  as 
wholly  powerless  in  opposition  to  Jehovah's  interference  for  the  emancipa- 
tion of  his  people.     The  forty-eighth  contains  the  winding  up  of  this  gi-eat 
argument  from  C}t.'us  and  the  fall  of  Babylon,  as  a  conviction  and  rebuke 
to  the  unbelieving  Jews  themselves.     The  fact  that  Babylon  is  expressly 
mentioned  only  in  these  chapters  is  a  strong  confiiTnation  of  our  jirevious  con- 
clusion that  it  is  not  the  main  subject  of  the  prophecy.     By  a  natural  transi- 
tion he  reverts  in  the  forty-ninth  to  the  true  Israel,  and  shews  the  ground- 
lessness of  their  misgivings,  by  disclosing  God's  design  respecting  them,  and 
shewing  the  certainty  of  its  fulfilment  notwithstanding  all   discouraging 
.  appearances.     The  difierence  in  the  character  and  fate  of  the  two  Israels  is 
still  more  exactly  defined  in  the  fiftieth  chapter.     In  the  fifty-first  the  true 
relation  of  the  chosen  people  both  to  God  and  to  the  Gentiles  is  illustrated 
by  historical  examples,  the  calling  of  Abram  and  the  exodus  from  Egypt, 
and  the  same  power  pledged  for  the  safety  of  Israel  in  time  to  come.     In 
the  last  part  of  this  chapter  and  the  first  of  the  fifty-second,  which  cohere 
in  the  most  intimate  manner,  the  gracious  purposes  of  God  are  reiDresented 
as  fulfilled  already,  and  described  in  the  most  animating  terms.     This  ^dew 
of  the  future  condition  of  the  Church  could  not  be  separated  long  from  that 
of  Him  by  whom  it  was  to  be  efi'ected  ;  and  accordingly  the  last  part  of  this 
chapter,  forming  one  unbroken  context  with  the  fifty-third,  exhibits  him 
anew,  no  longer  as  a  teacher,  but  as  the  gi-eat  sacrifice  for  sin.     No  sooner 
is  this  great  work  finished  than  the  best  days  of  the  Church  begin,  the  loss 


78  INTRODUCTIOX. 

of  national  distinction  being  really  a  pvelude  to  her  glorious  emancipation. 
The  promise  of  this  great  change  in  the  fifty-fourth  chapter,  is  followed  in 
the  fifty- fifth  by  a  gracious  invitation  to  the  whole  world  to  partake  of  it. 
The  fifty- sixth  continues  the  same  subject,  by  predicting  the  entire  abroga- 
tion of  all  local,  personal,  and  national  distinctions.  Having  dwelt  so  long 
upon  the  prospects  of  the  spiritual  Israel  or  true  Church,  the  Prophet,  in 
last  part  of  the  fifty-sixth  and  the  first  part  of  the  fifty-seventh,  looks  back 
at  the  carnal  Israel,  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  its  idolatrous  apostasy,  and 
closes  with  a  threatening  which  insensibly  melts  into  a  promise  of  salvation 
to  the  true  Israel.  The  fifty-eighth  again  presents  the  carnal  Israel,  not  as 
idolaters  but  as  h^-pocrites,  and  points  out  the  true  mean  between  the  rejec- 
tion of  appointed  rites  and  the  abuse  of  them.  The  fiftj'-ninth  explains 
Jehovah's  dealings  with  the  nation  of  the  Jews,  and  shews  that  their  rejec- 
tion was  the  fruit  of  their  ovsn  doings,  as  the  salvation  of  the  saved  was  that 
of  God's  omnipotent  compassions.  In  the  sixtieth  he  turns  once  more  to 
the  true  Israel,  and  begins  a  series  of  magnificent  descriptions  of  the  new 
dispensation  as  a  whole,  contrasted  with  the  imperfections  and  restrictions  of 
the  old.  The  prominent  figures  of  the  picture  in  this  chapter  are,  immense 
increase  by  the  accession  of  the  Gentiles,  and  internal  purity  and  peace. 
The  prominent  figure  in  the  sixty-first  is  that  of  the  Messiah  as  the  agent  in 
this  great  work  of  spiritual  emancipation.  In  the  sixty-second  it  is  that  of 
Zion,  or  the  Church  herself,  in  the  most  intimate  union  with  Jehovah  and 
the  full  fruition  of  his  favour.  But  this  anticipation  is  inseparably  blended 
with  that  of  vengeance  on  the  enemies  of  God,  which  is  accordingly  pre- 
sented in  the  sublime  vision  of  the  sixty-third  chapter,  followed  by  an  appeal 
to  God's  former  dealings  with  his  people,  as  a  proof  that  their  rejection  was 
their  own  fault,  and  that  he  will  still  protect  the  true  believers.  These  are 
represented  in  the  sixty-fourth  as  humbly  confessing  their  own  sins  and 
suing  for  the  favour  of  Jehovah.  In  the  sixty-fifth  he  solemnly  anounces 
the  adoption  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  rejection  of  the  carnal  Israel  because  of 
their  iniquities,  among  which  idolatry  is  once  more  rendered  prominent.  He 
then  contrasts  the  doom  of  the  apostate  Israel  with  the  glorious  destiny 
awaiting  the  true  Israel.  And  this  comparison  is  still  continued  in  the 
sixty-sixth  chapter,  wdiere  the  Prophet,  after  ranging  through  so  wide  a  field 
of  vision,  seems  at  last  to  fix  his  own  eye  and  his  reader's  on  the  dividing 
line  or  tm*ning-point  between  the  old  and  new'  economy,  and  winds  up  the 
whole  drama  w'ith  a  vivid  exhibition  of  the  nations  gathered  to  Jerusalem 
for  worship,  while  the  children  of  the  kingdom,  i.  e.  Irsael  according  to  the 
flesh,  are  cast  forth  into  outer  darkness,  "  where  their  worm  dieth  not  and 
their  fire  is  not  quenched."  Upon  this  awful  spectacle  the  curtain  falls,  and 
we  are  left  to  find  relief  from  its  impressions  in  the  merciful  disclosures  of 
later  and  more  cheering  revelation. 

Arrangement  of  the  Commentary.  The  usual  division  into  chapters 
is  retained,  as  being  universally  familiar  and  in  general  convenient. 
The  analysis  of  these  divisions,  and  other  preliminary  statements  and 
discussions,  are  prefixed  as  special  introductions  to  the  chapters.  The 
literal  translation,  sometimes  combined  with  an  explanatory  paraphrase, 
is  followed  by  the  nccessaiy  comments  and  the  statement  of  the  diti'erent 
opinions.  In  the  order  of  the  topics,  some  regard  has  been  had  to  their 
comparative  importance,  but  without  attempting  to  secure  a  perfect  uni- 
formity in  this  respect,  which,  if  it  were  attainable,  would  probably  add 
nothing  to  the  force  or  clearness  of  the  exposition. 


COMMENTARY. 


CHAPTEE   I. 

The  design  of  this  chapter  is  to  shew  the  connection  between  the  sins  and 
sufferings  of  God's  people,  and  the  necessity  of  further  judgments,  as  means 
of  purification  and  deliverance. 

The  popular  corruption  is  first  exhibited  as  the  effect  of  alienation  from 
God,  and  as  the  cause  of  national  calamities,  vers.  2-9.  It  is  then  ex- 
hibited as  coexisting  with  punctilious  exactness  in  religious  duties,  and  as 
rendering  them  vporthless,  vers.  10-20.  It  is  finally  exhibited  in  twofold 
contrast,  first  with  a  former  state  of  things,  and  then  with  one  still  future, 
to  be  brought  about  by  the  destruction  of  the  wicked,  and  especially  of 
wicked  rulers,  vers.  21-31. 

The  first  part  of  the  chapter  describes  the  sin  and  then  the  suffering  of 
the  people.  The  former  is  characterised  as  filial  ingratitude,  stupid  incon- 
sideration,  habitual  transgression,  contempt  of  God,  and  alienation  from 
him,  vers.  2-4.  The  sufiering  is  first  represented  by  the  figure  of  disease 
and  wounds,  and  then  in  literal  terms  as  the  effect  of  an  invasion  by 
which  the  nation  was  left  desolate,  and  only  saved  by  God's  regard  for  his 
elect  from  the  total  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  vers.  5-9. 

The  second  part  is  connected  with  the  first  by  the  double  allusion  to 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  with  which  the  one  closes  and  the  other  opens.  In 
this  part  the  Prophet  shews  the  utter  ineffiicacy  of  religious  rites  to  counter- 
act the  natural  effect  of  their  iniquities,  and  then  exhorts  them  to  the  use 
of  the  true  remedy.  Under  the  former  head,  addressing  them  as  similar 
in  character  to  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  he  describes  their  sacrifices  as  abun- 
dant and  exact,  but  not  acceptable  ;  their  attendance  at  the  temple  as 
punctual,  and  yet  insulting  ;  their  bloodless  offerings  as  abhorrent,  and 
their  holy  days  as  wearisome  and  hateful  on  account  of  their  iniquities ; 
their  very  prayers  as  useless,  because  their  hands  were  stained  with  blood, 
vers.  10-15.  As  a  necessary  means  of  restoration  to  God's  favour,  he 
exhorts  them  to  forsake  their  evil  courses  and  to  exercise  benevolence  and 
justice,  assuring  them  that  God  was  willing  to  forgive  them  and  restore  the 
advantages  which  they  had  forfeited  by  sin,  but  at  the  same  time  resolved 
to  punish  the  impenitent  transgressor,  vers.  16-20. 

The  transition  from  the  second  to  the  third  part  is  abrupt,  and  introduced 
by  a  pathetic  exclamation.  In  this  part  the  Prophet  compares  Israel  as  it 
is  with  what  it  has  been  and  with  what  it  shall  be.  In  the  former  compa- 
rison, he  employs  two  metaphors,  each  followed  by  a  literal  explanation  of 


80  ISAIAH  I  [Yer.  1. 

its  meaning  :  that  of  a  faithful  wife  become  a  harlot,  and  that  of  adulterated 
wine  and  silver,  both  expressive  of  a  moral  deterioration,  with  special  re- 
ference to  magistrates  and  rulers,  vers.  21-23.  In  the  other  comparison, 
the  coming  judgments  are  presented  in  the  twofold  aspect  of  purification 
and  deliverance  to  the  church,  and  of  destruction  to  its  wicked  members. 
The  Prophet  sees  the  leading  men  of  Israel  destroyed,  fii-st  as  oppressors, 
to  make  room  for  righteous  rulers  and  thus  save  the  state,  then  as  idolaters 
consumed  by  that  in  which  they  trusted  for  protection,  vers.  24-31. 

This  chapter  is  referred  to  by  Grotius  and  Cocceius  to  the  reign  of  Uzziah, 
by  Lowth  and  De  Wette  to  the  reign  of  Jotham,  by  Gesenius  and  Ewald  to 
the  reign  of  Ahaz,  by  Jarchi  and  Yitringa  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  This 
disagreement  has  arisen  from  assuming  that  it  must  be  a  prediction  in  the 
strict  sense,  and  have  reference  to  one  event  or  series  of  events  exclusively, 
while  in  the  prophecy  itself  there  are  no  certain  indications  of  the  period 
referred  to.     The  only  points  which  seem  to  furnish  any  data  for  determin- 

(ing  the  question,  are  the  invasion  mentioned  in  ver.  7,  and  the  idolatry 
referred  to  in  vers.  28-31.  But  the  former  is  almost  equally  applicable  to 
the  Syrian  invasion  under  Ahaz  and  the  Assp'ian  under  Hezekiah.  And 
the  idolatiy  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  punctilious  regard  to  the 
forms  of  the  Mosaic  ritual.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  evident  that  the  chap- 
ter contains  one  continuous  coherent  composition.  It  is  probable,  thei'e- 
fore,  that  this  projihecy  belongs  to  the  class  already  mentioned  (in  the 
Introduction)  as  exhibiting  a  sequence  of  events,  or  providential  scheme, 
which  might  be  realized  in  more  than  one  emergency  ;  not  so  much  a  pre- 
diction as  a  prophetic  lesson  with  respect  to  the  efi'ects  which  certain  causes 
must  infallibly  produce.  Such  a  discom-se  would  be  peculiarly  appropriate 
as  an  introduction  to  the  prophecies  which  follow  ;  and  its  seeming  incon- 
sistencies are  all  accounted  for,  by  simply  supposing  that  it  was  written  for 
this  purpose  about  the  time  of  Sennacherib's  invasion  in  the  fourteenth 
year  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  and  that  in  it  the  Prophet  takes  a  general  survey 
of  the  changes  which  the  church  had  undergone  since  the  beginning  of  his 
public  ministry. 

1.  This  is  a  general  title  of  the  whole  book  or  one  of  its  larger  divisions 
(chaps,  i.-xxxix  or  i.-xii),  defining  its  character, "[author,  subject,  and  date. 
The  Vision  (supernatural  perception,  inspiration,  revelation,  prophecy,  here 
put  collectively  for  Prophecies)  of  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz,  irhich  he  saw 
(perceived,  received  by  inspiration)  conceruinfj  Judah  (the  kingdom  of  the 
two  tribes,  which  adhered  to  the  theocracy  after  the  revolt  of  Jeroboam) 
and  Jermalem  (its  capital,  the  chosen  seat  of  the  true  religion),  in  the  days 
of  IJzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah. — The  Septuagint 
/  renders  ^V  arfainst ;  but  as  all  the  prophecies  are  not  of  an  unfavourable 
I  character,  it  is  better  to  retain  the  wider  sense  concerninci. — Aben  Ezra  and 
Abarbenel  regard  this  as  the  title  of  the  first  chapter  only,  and  to  meet  the 
objection  that  a  single  prophecy  would  not  have  been  referred  to  four  suc- 
cessive reigns,  instead  of  «7i/(7i  he  saw  read  who  saw  [i.  e.  was  a  seer)  in  the 
dai/s  if  I'zziah,  &c.  But  the  tenses  of  Htn  arc  not  thus  absolutely  used, 
and  the  same  words  occur  in  chap.  ii.  1,  where  the  proposed  construction 
is  impossible.  Yitringa's  supposition  that  the  sentence  originally  consisted 
of  the  first  clause  only,  and  that  the  rest  was  added  at  a  later  date  to  make 
it  applicable  as  a  general  title,  is  entirely  gratuitous,  and  opens  the  door  to 
endless  licence  of  conjecture.  Hendewerk  goes  further,  and  calls  in  ques- 
tion the  antiquity  and  genuineness  of  the  whole  verse,  but  without  the 
least  authority.     Accordmg  to  ancient  and  oriental  usage,  it  was  probably 


II 


Ver.  2,  3.]  ISAIAH  I  81 

prefixed  by  Isaiah  liimself  to  a  partial  or  complete  collection  of  his  prophe- 
cies. To  the  objection  that  ptn  is  singular,  the  answer  is,  that  it  is  used 
collectively  because  it  has  no  piui-al,  and  appears  as  the  title  of  this  same 
book"or  another  in  2  Chron.  xxxii.  32.  To  the  objection  that  the  prophecies 
are  not  all  concerning  Judah  and  Jcniscdem,  the  answer  is,  a  potiori  Jit  de- 
nominatio,  to  which  may  be  added  that  the  prophecies  relating  to  the  ten 
tribes  and  to  foreign  powers  owe  their  place  in  this  collection  to  their  bear- 
ing, more  or  less  direct,  upon  the  interests  of  Judah.  To  the  objection 
that  the  fu-st  chapter  has  no  other  title,  we  may  answer  that  it  needs  no 
other,  partly  because  it  is  sufficiently  distinguished  from  what  follows  by 
the  title  of  the  second,  partly  because  it  is  not  so  much  the  first  in  a  series 
of  prophecies  as  a  general  preface.  With  respect  to  the  names  Isaiah  and 
Amoz,  and  the  chronologj'  of  this  verse,  see  the  Introduction,  Part  I. 

2.  The  Prophet  first  describes  the  moral  state  of  Judah,  vers.  2-4,  and 
then  the  miseries  arising  from  it,  vers.  5-9.  To  the  former  he  invites 
attention  by  summoning  the  universe  to  hear  the  Lord's  complaint  against 
his  people,  who  are  first  charged  with  filial  ingratitude.  Hear,  0  heavens; 
and  give  ear,  0  earth,  as  witnesses  and  judges,  and  as  being  less  insensible 
yourselves  than  men:  for  Jehovah  speaks,  not  man.  Som  I  have  reared 
and  brought  np,  literally  made  great  and  made  high,  and  they,  with  em- 
phasis on  the  pronoun  which  is  otherwise  superfluous,  even  they  have  revolted 
from  me,  or  rebelled  against  me,  not  merely  in  a  general  sense  by  sinning,  , 
but  in  a  special  sense  by  violating  that  peculiar  covenant  which  bound  God  f 
to  his  people.  It  is  in  reference  to  this  bond,  and  to  the  conjugal  relation 
which  the  Scriptures  represent  God  as  sustaining  to  his  church  or  people, 
that  its  constituted  members  are  here  called  his  children. — Yitringa  and 
others  understand  heaven  and  earth  as  meaning  angels  and  men  ;  but  al- 
though these  may  be  included,  it  is  plain  that  the  direct  address  is  to  the 
frame  of  nature,  as  in  Deut.  xxxii.  1,  from  which  the  form  of  expression  is 
borrowed. — Ivnobel  and  all  other  recent  writers  exclude  the  idea  of  bearing 
witness  altogether,  and  suppose  heaven  and  earth  to  be  called  upon  to  listen, 
simply  because  Jehovah  is  the  speaker.  But  the  two  ideas  are  entirely  com- 
patible, and  the  first  is  recommended  by  the  analogy  of  Deut.  xxs.  19,  and 
by  its  poetical  efi'ect. — Cocceius  takes  ''^7'3^  in  the  sense  of  bringing  up,  but 
'ripon  in  that  oi  exalting  to  peculiar  privileges,  which  disturbs  the  metaphor, 
an^^olates  the  usage  of  the  two  verbs,  which  are  elsewhere  joined  as  simple 
synonymes.  (See  chap,  xxlii.  7  ;  Ezek.  xxxi.  4.)  Both  terms  are  so  chosen 
as  to  be  applicable,  in  a  lower  sense,  to  children,  and  in  a  higher  sense,  to 
nations. — The  English  Bible  and  many  other  versions  read  Jehovah  has 
spoken,  which  seems  to  refer  to  a  previous  revelation,  or  to  indicate  a 
mere  repetition  of  his  words,  whereas  he  is  himself  introduced  as  speaking. 
The  preterite  may  be  here  used  to  express  the  present,  for  the  purpose  of 
suggesting  that  he  did  not  thus  speak  for  the  first  time.    Compare  Heb.  i.  1. 

3.  Having  tacitly  compared  the  insensible  Jews  with  the  inanimate 
creation,  he  now  explicitly  compares  them  with  the  brutes,  selecting  for  that 
purpose  two  which  were  especially  familiar  as  domesticated  animals,  sub- 
jected to  man's  power  and  dependent  on  him  for  subsistence,  and  at  the 
same  time  as  proverbially  stupid,  inferiority  to  which  must  therefore  be 
peculiarly  disgi'aceful.  The  ox  knoiveth  his  owner,  and  the  ass  his  master's 
crib  or  feeding-place.  Israel,  the"  chosen  people,  as  a  whole,  without  re- 
gard to  those  who  had  seceded  from  it,  doth  not  know,  my  people  doth  not 
consider,  pay  attention  or  take  notice.     Like  the  ox  and  the  ass,  Israel 

VOL.  I.  F 


82  ISAIAH  I  [Ver.  4,  5. 

had  a  master,  upon  whom  he  was  dependent,'  and  to  whom  he  owed  obedi- 
ence ;  but,  unlike  them,  he  did  not  recognise  and  wouW  not  serve  his 
rightful  sovereign  and  tbe  author  of  his  mercies. — The  Soptuagint  supplies 
vie  after  know  and  consider  (/xs  ouk  'iyvu  .  .  .  .  /ms  oi  a\jrf,y.iv).  The  Vul- 
gate, followed  by  Michaelis,  Lowth,  and  others,  supplies  vie  after  the  first 
verb,  but  leaves  the  other  indefinite.  Gesenius,  De  Wette,  and  Hendewerk 
supply  him,  I'eferring  to  owner  and  master.  Clericus,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit 
take  the  verbs  in  the  absolute  and  general  sense  of  having  knowledge  and 
being  considerate,  which  is  justified  by  usage,  but  gives  less  point  and  pre- 
cision to  the  sentence. 

4.  As  the  foregoing  verses  render  prominent  the  false  position  of  Israel 
with  respect  to  God,  considered  first  as  a  father  and  then  as  a  master 
(comp.  Mai.  i.  6),  so  this  brings  into  view  their  moral  state  in  general, 
resulting  from  that  alienation,  and  still  represented  as  inseparable  from  it. 
The  Prophet  speaks  again  in  his  own  person,  and  expresses  wonder,  pity, 
and  indignation  at  the  state  to  which  his  people  had  reduced  themselves. 

1  Ah,  sinfnl  nation,  literally  nation  sinning,  i.  e.  habitually,  which  is  the 
force  here  of  the  active  participle,  people  heavy  icith  iniquity,  weighed  down 
by  guilt  as  an  oppressive  burden,  a  seed  of  evil-doers,  i.  e.  the  ofi'spring  of 
wicked  parents,  sons  corrnptiny  themselves,  i.  e.  doing  worse  than  their 
fathers,  in  which  sense  the  same  verb  is  used.  Judges  ii.  19.  (Calvin  :  filii 
degeneres.)  The  evil-doers  are  of  course  not  the  Patriarchs  or  Fathers  of 
the  nation,  but  the  intervening  wicked  generations.  As  the  fu'st  clause  tells 
us  what  they  were,  so  the  second  tells  us  what  the}'  did,  by  what  acts  they 
had  merited  the  chai*acter  just  given.  They  have  forsaken  Jehovah,  a  phrase 
descriptive  of  iniquity  in  general,  but  peculiarly  expressive  of  the  breach  of 
covenant  obligations.  They  have  treated  with  contempt  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel,  a  title  almost  peculiar  to  Isaiah,  and  expressing  a  twofold  aggrava- 
tion of  their  sin:  first,  that  he  was  infinitely  excellent;  and  then,  that  he  was 
theirs,  their  own  peculiar  God.     TJiey  are  alienated  hack  again.     The  verb 

j denotes  estrangement  from  God,  the  adverb  retrocession  or  backsliding  into 
a  former  state. — By  a  seed  of  evil-doers  most  writers  understand  a  race  or 
generation  of  e^^l-doers,  and  by  children  corrupting  (their  ways  or  them- 
selves, as  Aben  Ezra  explains  it)  nothing  more  than  wicked  men.  Gesenius 
and  Henderson  render  D''n''nL?'D  corrupt,  Barnes  corrupting  others.  The 
sense  of  mischievous,  destructive,  is  given  by  Luther,  and  the  vague  one  of 
wicked  by  the  Vulgate.  The  other  explanation,  which  supposes  an  allusion 
to  the  parents,  takes  V^l  and  C^S  in  their  proper  meaning,  makes  the  paral- 
lelism of  the  clauses  more  complete,  and  converts  a  tautology  into  a  climax. — 
The  sense  of  blaspheming  g'wen  to  )*^J  by  the  Vulgate  and  Luther,  and  that 
of  provoking  to  anger  by  the  Septuagint,  Aben^  Ezra,  Kimchi,  and  others, 
are  rejected  by  the  modern  lexicographers  for  that  of  despising  or  troiiting 
with  contempt.  The  last  two  are  combined  by  Junius  (contemtim  irritave- 
run)  nnd  the  old  French  Version  (ils  ont  imte  par  mepris). — The  Niplial 
form  -IITJ  is  by  most  writers  treated  as  simply  equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  Kal 
— 'they  have  departed;'  but  the  usage  of  the  participles  active  and  passive 
(Ps.  Ixix.  9)  in  the  sense  of  strange  and  estranged,  is  in  favour  of  the  inter- 
pretation given  by  Aquila  and  Theodotion,  drrriXXoroiudriaav  e/'s  ru  i-isu. 

'  5.  To  the  description  of  their  moral  state,  be,i^innning  and  ending  with 
apostasy  from  God,  the  Prophet  now  adds  a  description  ot  the  consequences, 
vers.  5-9.  This  he  introduces  by  an  expostulation  on  their  mad  perseverance 
in  transgression,  notwithstanding  the  extremities  to  which  it  had  reduced 
them.     Whereupon,  i.  c.  on  what  part  of  the   body,   can  ye  be  stricken, 


Yer.  6.J  ISAIAH  I  83 

smitten,  punished,  anij  more,  that  ye  add  revolt,  departure  or  apostasy  from 
God,  i.  e.  revolt  more  and  more  ?  Ah'eady  the  tchole  head  is  sick  and  the 
ivhole  heart  faint. — The  same  sense  is  attained,  but  in  a  less  striking  form, 
by  reading,  with  Hitzig,  jc/u/,  to  what  purpose,  will  ye  he  smitten  any  more  ? 
why  continue  to  revolt  /  If  their  object  was  to  make  themselves  miserable, 
it  was  already  accomplished. — Calvin,  followed  by  the  English  version  and 
others,  gives  a  different  turn  to  the  interrogation  :  Why  should  ye  he  smitten 
any  more?  of  what  use  is  it?  ye  will  revolt  more  and  more.  But  the 
reason  thus  assigned  for  their  ceasing  to  be  smitten  is  whollj-  diflerent  from 
that  given  in  the  last  clause  and  amplified  in  the  following  verse,  viz.  that 
they  were  already  faint  and  covered  with  wounds.  The  Vulgate  version 
(super  quo  percutiemini  ?)  is  retained  by  Luther,  Lowth,  Gesenius,  and 
others.  The  very  same  metaphor  occurs  more  than  once  in  classical  poetry, 
Lowth  quotes  examples  from  Euripides  and  Ovid  (vix  habet  in  nobis  jam 
nova  plaga  locum). — Hendewerk  supposes  the  people  to  be  asked  where 
they  can  be  smitten  with  effect,  i.  e.  what  kind  of  punishment  will  do  them 
good ;  but  this  is  forced,  and  does  not  suit  the  context.  Ewald  repeats 
whereupon  before  the  second  verb  :  '  upon  what  untried  transgi'ession  build- 
ing, will  ye  still  revolt  ?  which  is  needless  and  unnatural. — Instead  of  the 
whole  head,  the  whole  heart,  Winer  and  Hitzig  render  every  head  and  every 
heart,  because  the  nouns  have  not  the  article.  But  see  chap.  ix.  11;  Ps. 
cxi.  1  ;  the  omission  of  the  article  is  one  of  the  most  familiar  licences  of 
poetry.  The  context  too  requires  that  the  words  should  be  applied  to  the 
head  and  heart  of  the  body  mentioned  in  ver.  6,  viz.  the  body  politic. — The 
head  and  heart  do  not  denote  different  ranks  (Hendewerk),  cr  the  inward  and 
outward  state  of  the  community  (Umbreit),  but  are  mentioned  as  well-known 
and  important  parts  of  the  body,  to  which  the  church  or  nation  had  been 
likened. — Gesenius  explains  vn?  to  mean  in  sickness,  Ewald  (inclined  to 
sickness,  Knobel  (belonging)  to  sickness,  Clericus  (given  up)  to  sickness, 
Kosenmiiller  (abiit)  in  morhum.  The  general  sense  is  plain  from  the  parallel 
term  ''•n,  faint  or  languid  from  disease. 

6.  The  idea  suggested  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  5,  that  there  was  no 
more  room  for  further  strokes,  is  now  carried  out  with  great  particularity. 
From  the  sole  of  the  foot  and  (/.  e.  even)  to  (he  head  (a  common  scriptural 
expression  for  the  body  in  its  whole  extent)  there  is  not  in  it  (the  people,  or 
in  him,  /.  e.  Judah,  considered  as  a  body)  a  sound  j^lace  ;  (ft  is)  wound 
and  hruise  QmuiXu-^,  vibex,  the  tumour  produced  by  stripes)  and  fresh  stroke. 
The  wounds  are  then  described  as  not  only  grievous,  but  neglected.  They 
have  not  been  pressed,  and  they  have  not  heen  hound  or  bandaged,  and  it  has 
not  heen  mollified  with  ointment,  all  familiar  processes  of  ancient  surgery. 
— Cahdn  argues  that  the  figures  in  this  verse  and  the  one  preceding  cannot 
refer  to  moral  corruption,  since  the  Prophet  himself  afterwards  explains 
them  as  descriptive  of  external  sufferings.  But  he  seems  to  have  intended 
to  keep  up  before  his  readers  the  connection  between  suffering  and  sin,  and 
therefore  to  have  chosen  terms  suited  to  excite  associations  both  of  pain 
and  corruption. — The  last  verb,  which  is  singular  and  feminine,  is  supposed 
by  Junius  and  J.  H.  Michaelis  to  agree  with  the  nouns  distributively,  as 
the  others  do  collectively  ;  "  none  of  them  is  mollified  with  ointment." 
Ewald  and  Umbreit  connect  it  with  the  last  noun  exclusively.  All  the 
verbs  are  rendered  in  the  singular  by  Cocceius  and  Lowth,  all  in  the  plui'al 
by  Yitringa  and  J.  D.  Michaelis.  The  most  probable  solution  is  that  pro-:. 
posed  by  Knobel,  who  takes  np?"l  indefinitely,  "  it  has  not  been  softened,"' 
i.e.  no  one  has  softened,  like  the  Latin  ventum  est  for  "  some  one  came." 


84  ISAIAH  I  [Ver.  7,  8. 

This  construction,  althougli  foreign  from  our  idiom,  is  not  uncommon  in 
Hebrew. — n*1P  nsp  is  not  a  runninf/  or  juitrrfi/inr/  sore  (Eng.  Vers.  Barnes), 
but  a  recentl}'  inflicted  stroke. — The  singular  nouns  may  be  regarded  as 
collectives,  or  with  better  cflfect,  as  denoting  that  the  body  was  one  wound, 
&c. — The  suffix  in  12  cannot  refer  to  n*1.^  understood  (Henderson),  which 
would  require  1^3. — DriP  may  be  an  abstract  meaning  soiDidness  (LXX. 
oXn-/.Xr}p!a),  but  is  more  probably  a  noun  of  place  from  CPJ?. 

7.  Thus  far  the  sufferings  of  the  people  have  been  represented  by  strong 
figures,  giving  no  intimation  of  their  actual  form,  or  of  the  outward  causes 
which  produced  them.  But  now  the  Prophet  brings  distinctly  into  view 
foreign  invasion  as  the  instrument  of  vengeance,  and  describes  the  country 
as  already  desolated  by  it.  The  absence  of  verbs  in  the  first  clause  gives 
gi'eat  rapidity  and  life  to  the  description.  Your  land  (including  town  and 
country,  which  are  afterwards  distinctly  mentioned)  a  tcastc  !  Your  towns 
(including  cities  and  villages  of  every  size)  burnt  iiithjire !  Your  rj round 
(including  its  produce),  i.e.  as  to  your  ground,  before  you  (in  your  pre- 
sence, but  beyond  your  reach  [strmu/ers  [are)  devouring  it,  and  a  tvaste  (it 
is  a  waste)  like  the  overthrow  of  strangers,  i.  e.  as  foreign  foes  arc  wont  to 
waste  a  country  in  which  they  have  no  interest,  and  for  which  they  have 
no  pity.  (Vulg.  sicut  in  vastitate  hostili.) — As  D''"iT  often  includes  the  idea 
of  strangers  to  God  and  the  true  religion,  and  as  n^SHP  in  every  other  in- 
stance means  the  overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  Hitzig  and  Ewald 
adopt  Kimchi's  explanation  of  this  clause,  as  containing  an  allusion  to^that 
event,  which  is  the  great  historical  t}^)e  of  total  destruction  on  account  of 
sin,  often  referred  to  elsewhere,  and  in  this  very  context,  two  verses  below. 
This  exposition,  though  ingenious,  is  unnecessary,  and  against  it  lies 
almost  the  whole  weight  of  exegetical  authority. — Sadias  explains  2''"?T  not 
as  a  plural  but  a  singular  noun  derived  from  QIJ  to  flow  or  over/low,  in 
which  he  is  followed  by  Dciderlin  and  Lowth  ("  as  if  destroyed  by  an  in- 
undation ").  But  no  such  noun  occurs  elsewhere,  and  it  is  most  impro- 
bable that  two  nouns,  wholly  different  in  meaning  yet  coincident  in  form, 
would  be  used  in  this  one  sentence. 

8.  The  extent  of  the  desolation  is  expressed  by  comparing  the  church  or 
nation  to  a  watch-shed  in  a  field  or  vineyard,  far  from  other  habitations, 
and  forsaken  after  the  ingathering.  And  the  daughter  of  Zion,  i.e.  the 
people  of  Zion  or  Jerusalem,  considered  as  the  capital  of  Judah,  and 
therefore  representing  the  whole  nation,  is  left,  not  forsaken,  but  left  over 
or  behind  as  a  survivor,  like  a  booth,  a  temporary  covert  of  leaves  and 
branches,  iii  a  vineyard,  like  a  lodge  in  a  melon- field,  like  a  watched  city, 
i.  e.  watched  by  friends  and  foes,  besieged  and  ganisoned,  and  therefore 
insulated,  cut  off  from  all  communication  with  the  countiy. — Interpreters, 
almost  without  exception,  explain  daughter  of  Zion  to  mean  the  city  of 
Jerusalem,  and  suppose  the  extent  of  desolation  to  be  indicated  by  the 
metropolis  alone  remaining  unsubdued.  But  on  this  supposition  they  are 
forced  to  explain  how  a  besieged  city  could  be  like  a  besieged  city,  either 
by  saying  that  Jerusalem  only  suffered  as  if  she  were  besieged  (Ewald) ; 
or  by  taking  the  3  as  a  caph  reritatis  expressing  not  resemblance  but  iden- 
tity, "  like  a  besieged  city  as  she  is  "  (Gesen.  ad  loc.  Henderson)  ;  or  by 
reading  "  so  is  the  besieged  city  "  (Gesen.  Lex.  Man.)  :  or  by  gratuitously 
taking  '^7'^*?  "'^i?  iu  the  sense  of  "  turris  custodiae  "  or  watch-tower  (Ting- 
stad.  Hitzig.  Gesen.  Thes.).  If,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  daughter  of 
Zion  primarily  signifies  the  people  of  Zion  or  Jerusalem,  and  the  city  only 
by  a  transfer  of  the  figure,  it  is  better  to  retain  the  former  meaning  in  a 


Yeb.  9,  lO.j  ISAIAU  I.  85 

case  where  departure  from  it  is  not  only  needless  but  creates  a  difficulty  in 
the  exposition.  According  to  Hengstenherg  (Comm.  on  Psalm  ix.  15), 
daughter  of  Z ion  means  the  daughter  Zion,  as  city  of  Home  means  the  city 
Rome.  But  even  granting  this,  the  church  or  nation  may  at  least  as  natu- 
rally be  called  a  daughter,  i.  e.  virgin  or  young  woman,  as  a  city.  That 
Jerusalem  is  not  called  the  daughter  of  Zion  from  its  local  situation  on  the 
mountain,  is  clear  from  the  analogous  phrases,  daughter  of  Tyre,  daughter 
of  Babylon,  where  no  such  explanation  is  admissible. — The  meaning  saved, 
preserved,  which  is  put  upon  n"?"!^*!!  by  Koppe,  Rosenmiiller,  Maurer,  and 
Gesenius  in  his  Commentary,  seems  inappropriate  in  a  description  of  ex- 
treme desolation,  but  does  not  materially  atfect  the  interpretation  of  the 
passage. 

9.  The  idea  of  a  desolation  almost  total  is  expressed  in  other  words, 
and  with  an  intimation  that  the  narrow  escape  was  owing  to  God's  favour 
for  the  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace,  who  still  existed  in  the 
Jewish  chui'ch.  Except  Jehovah  of  hosts  had  left  unto  iis  (or  caused  to 
remain  over,  to  survive,  for  us)  a  very  small  remnant,  xve  should  have  been 
like  Sodom,  ice  should  have  resembled  Gomorrah,  i.  e.  we  should  have  been 
totally  and  justly  destroyed. — By  the  very  small  remnant  Knobel  under- 
stands the  city  of  Jerusalem,  compared  with  the  whole  land  and  all  its 
cities  ;  Clericus  the  small  number  of  surviving  Jews.  But  that  the  verse 
has  reference  to  quality  as  well  as  quantity,  is  evident  from  Rom.  ix.  29, 
where  Paul  makes  use  of  it,  not  as  an  illustration,  but  as  an  argument  to 
shew  that  mere  connection  with  the  church  could  not  save  men  from  the 
wrath  of  God.  The  citation  would  have  been  irrelevant  if  this  phrase 
denoted  merely  a  small  number  of  survivors,  and  not  a  minority  of  true 
believers  in  the  midst  of  the  prevailing  unbelief.^Clericus  explains  Jeho- 
vah of  Hosts  to  mean  the  God  of  Battles  ;  but  it  rather  means  .the  Sove- 
reign Ruler  of  "  heaven  and  earth  and  all  the  host  of  them,"  i.  e.  all  their 
inhabitants  (Gen.  ii.  1). — Lowth  and  Barnes  translate  J^VP?  soon,  as  in 
Ps.  Ixxxi.  15  ;  but  the  usual  translation  agrees  better  with  the  context  and 
with  Paul's  quotation. 

10.  Having  assigned  the  corruption  of  the  people  as  the  cause  of  their 
calamities,  the  Prophet  now  guards  against  the  error  of  supposing  that  the 
sin  thus  visited  was  that  of  neglecting  the  external  duties  of  rehgion,  which 
were  in  fact  punctiliously  performed,  but  unavailing  because  joined  with 
the  practice  of  iniquity,  vers.  10-15.  This  part  of  the  chapter  is  connected 
with  what  goes  before  by  repeating  the  allusion  to  Sodom  and  Gomorrah. 
Having  just  said  that  God's  sparing  mercy  had  alone  prevented  their  re- 
sembling Sodom  and  Gomorrah  in  condition,  he  now  reminds  them  that 
they  do  resemble  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  in  iniquity.  The  reference  is  not 
to  pai-ticular  vices,  but  to  general  character,  as  Jerusalem,  when  reproached 
for  her  iniquities,  "  is  spiritually  called  Sodom  "  (Rev.  xi.  8).  The  com- 
parison is  here  made  by  the  fonn  of  address.  Hear  the  word  of  Jehovah, 
ye  judges  (or  rulers)  of  Sodom  ;  give  ear  to  the  law  of  our  God,  ye  people  of 
Gomorrah.  Word  and  law  both  denote  the  revelation  of  God's  will  as  a 
rule  of  faith  and  duty.  The  particular  exhibition  of  it  meant,  is  that  which 
follows,  and  to  which  this  verse  invites  attention  like  that  frequent  exhorta- 
tion of  our  Saviour,  He  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear. — Junius,  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  and  the  later  Germans,  take  H^ID  in  the  general  sense  of  doctrine 
or  instruction,  which,  though  favoured  by  its  etymology,  is  not  sustained 
by  usage.  Knobel,  with  more  probability,  supposes  an  allusion  to  the 
ritual  or  sacrificial  law  ;  but  there  is  no  need  either  of  enlarging  or  restrict- 


86  ISAIAH  L  i'Ver.  11,  12. 

ing  the  meanin"  of  the  term. — The  collocation  of  the  word  is  not  intended 
to  suggest  that  the  rulers  and  the  people  were  as  much  alike  as  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  (Calvin),  hut  to  produce  a  rhythmical  eflfect.  The  sense  is  that  the 
rulers  and  people  of  Judah  were  as  guilty  as  those  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah. 

11.  Resuming  the  form  of  interrogation  and  expostuhition,  he  teaches 
them  that  God  had  no  need  of  sacrifices  on  his  own  account,  and  that  even 
those  sacrifices  which  he  had  required  might  become  offensive  to  him.  For 
what  (for  what  purpose,  to  what  end,  of  what  use)  is  th&  multitude  of  your 
sacrifices  to  me  (/.  e.  ofiered  to  me,  or  of  what  use  to  me)  ?  saith  Jehovah. 
I  am  full  {i.e.  sated,  I  have  had  enough,  I  desire  no  more)  of  hunxt-ofj'er- 
iuf/s  of  rams  and  the  fat  of  fed  leasts  (fattened  for  the  altar),  and  the  blood 
of  hullochs  and  lamhs  and  he-goats  I  desire  not  (or  delight  not  in).  Male 
animals  arc  mentioned,  as  the  only  ones  admitted  in  the  lyV  or  burnt-ofiier- 
ing ;  the  fat  and  blood,  as  the  parts  in  which  the  sacrifice  essentially  con- 
sisted, the  one  being  always  burnt  upon  the  altar,  and  the  other  sprinkled 
or  poured  around  it.  Hcndewerk  and  Henderson  suppose  an  allusion  to 
the  excessive  multiplication  of  sacrifices  ;  but  this,  if  alluded  to  at  all,  is 
not  the  prominent  idea,  as  the  context  relates  wholly  to  the  spirit  and  con- 
duct of  the  oflcrers  themselves. — Some  German  interpreters  affect  to  see 
an  inconsistency  between  such  passages  as  this  and  the  law  requiring  sacri- 
fices. But  these  expressions  must  of  course  be  interpreted  by  what  follows, 
■and  especially  by  the  last  clause  of  ver.  13. — Bochart  explains  D''t?"'"iP  as 
denoting  a  species  of  wild  ox ;  but  wild  beasts  were  not  received  in  sacrifice, 
and  this  word  simply  suggests  the  idea  of  careful  preparation  and  assiduous 
compliance  with  the  ritual.  Aben  Ezra  restricts  it  to  the  larger  cattle, 
Jarchi  to  the  smaller ;  but  it  means  fed  ox  fattened  beasts  of  cither  kind. 

12.  What  had  just  becii  said  of  the  offerings  themselves,  is  now  said  of 
attendance  at  the  temple  to  present  them.  When  you  come  to  appear  before 
me,  trho  hath  required  this  at  your  hand  to  tread  my  courts,  not  merely  to 
frequent  them,  but  to  trample  on  them,  as  a  gesture  of  contempt  ?  The 
courts  here  meant  are  the  enclosures  aroimd  Solomon's  temple,  for  the 
priests,  worshippers,  and  victims.  The  interrogative  form  implies  negation. 
Such  appearance,  such  attendance,  God  had  not  required,  although  it  was 
their  duty  to  frequent  his  courts. — Cocceius  takes  ^3  in  its  ordinary  sense, 
without  a  material  change  of  meaning  :  '  that  ye  come,  &c.,  who  hath  re- 
quired this  at  your  hands  ?  '  Junius  makes  the  first  clause  a  distinct  inter- 
rogation (quod  advenitis,  an  ut  appareatis  in  conspectu  meo  ?),  Ewald  sees 
in  the  expression  at  your  hand,  an  allusion  to  the  sense  of  power,  in  which 
"^^  is  sometimes  used  ;  but  the  expression,  in  its  proper  sense,  is  natural  and 
common  after  verbs  of  gi^'ing  or  demanding. — Hitzig  supposes  the  tram- 
pling mentioned  to  be  that  of  the  victims,  as  if  he  had  said,  Who  hath  re- 
quired you  to  profane  my  courts  by  the  feet  of  cattle  ?  But  the  word 
appears  to  be  applied  to  the  worshippers  themselves  in  a  twofold  sense, 
which  cannot  be  expressed  by  any  single  word  in  English.  They  were 
bound  to  tread  his  courts,  but  not  to  trample  them.  Vitringa  lays  the 
emphasis  on  ijour .-  Who  hath  required  it  at  your  hands,  at  the  hands  of 
such  as  you  ?  Umbreit  strangely  thinks  the  passive  verb  emphatic  :  when 
jou  come  to  be  seen  and  not  to  see.  The  emphasis  is  really  on  this.  Who 
hath  required  this,  this  sort  of  attendance,  at  your  hands?  One  manu- 
script agrees  with  the  Peshito  in  reading  niX"!)?  to  see ;  but  the  common 
reading  is  no  doubt  the  true  one,  ''JS  being  used  adverbially  for  the  full  form 
^X  or  ''JS  n^,  which  is  elsewhere  construed  with  the  same  passive  verb 
(Exod.  xxiii.  17 ;  xxxiv.  23,  24). 


Vee.  13,  14.J  ,  ISAIAH  I  87 

13.  What  he  said  before  of  animal  sacrifices  and  of  attendance  at  the 
temple  to  present  ihem,  is  nov/  extended  to  bloodless  ofi'erings,  such  as 
incense  and  the  nnjp  or  meal-ofiering,  as  well  as  to  the  observance  of 
sacred  times,  and  followed  bj'  a  brief  intimation  of  the  sense  in  which  they 
were  all  unacceptable  to  God,  viz.  when  combined  with  the  practice  of 
iniquity.  The  interrogative  form  is  here  exchanged  for  that  of  direct  pro- 
hibition. Ye  shall  not  add  (/.  e.  continue)  to  brbig  a  vain  ojf'erinij  (that  is, 
a  useless  one,  because  hypocritical  and  impious).  Incense  is  an  abomina- 
tion to  me:  (so  are)  neiv  moon  and  sahhath,  the  callinfj  of  the  convocation 
(at  those  times,  or  at  the  annual  feasts,  which  are  then  distinctly  mentioned 
with  the  weekly  and  monthly  ones) :  /  cannot  bear  iniquity  and  hohj  day  , 
(abstinence  from  labour,  rehgious  observance),  meaning  of  course,  I  cannot  I 
bear  them  together.  This  last  clause  is  a  key  to  the  preceding  verses.  It 
was  not  religious  observance  in  itself,  but  its  combination  with  iniquity,  that 
God  abhorred.  Aben  Ezra  :  f'liy  l)^  V^  i'^i^-  ^^^'^  '■''■  J-  H.  MichaeUs: 
ferre  non  possum  pravitatem  et  ferias,  quo3  vos  conjungitis.  So  Cocceius, 
J.  D.  Michaehs,  Gesenius,  Ewald,  Henderson,  &c.  Other  constructions 
inconsistent  with  the  Masoretic  accents,  but  substantially  aflbrding  the  same 
sense,  as  those  of  Rosenmiiller  ("  as  for  new  moon,  sabbath,  &c.,  I  cannot 
bear  iniquit}-,"  &c.)  and  Umbreit  ("  new  moon  and  sabbath,  iniquity  and 
holy  day,  I  cannot  bear  ").  Another,  varying  the  sense  as  well  as  the  con- 
struction, is  that  of  Calvin  (solennes  indictiones  non  potero — vana  res  est 
— nee  conventum)  copied  by  Vitringa,  and,  with  some  modification,  by  the 
English  Version,  Clericus  and  Barnes  ("  it  is  iniquity — even  the  solemn 
closing  meeting  "),  which  violates  both  syntax  and  accentuation.  Clericus 
and  Gesenius  give  to  vain  oblation  the  specific  sense  oi false  ov  hypocritical; 
J.  D.  Michaehs,  Hitzig,  and  Ev/ald,  that  of  sinful ;  Cocceius  that  of  j^re- 
simjjtnous  (temerarium) ;  but  all  these  seem  to  be  included  or  implied  in 
the  old  and  common  version  vain  or  worthless.  (LXX.  [Maratov.  Vulg. 
frustra.  Luther,  vergeblich.^.  Cocceius  and  Ewald  construe  the  second 
member  of  the  sentence  thus  :  "  it  (the  meal- offering)  is  abominable  incense 
to  me  ;"  which  is  very  harsh.  The  modern  lexicographers  (Gesenius, 
Winer,  Flirst)  make  convocation  or  assembly  the  primary  idea  of  nnvy ; 
but  all  agree  that  it  is  used  in  applications  to  time  of  religious  observ- 
ance. 

14.  The  very  rites  ordained  by  God  himself,  and  once  acceptable  to  him, 
had,  through  the  sin  of  those  who  used  them,  become  irksome  and  disgust- 
ing. Your  new  moons  (an  emphatic  repetition,  as  if  he  had  said.  Yes,  your 
new  moons)  and  your  convocations  (sabbaths  and  yearly  feasts)  m,y  soul 
hateth  (not  a  mere  periphrasis  for  /  hate,  but  an  emphatic  phrase  denoting 
cordial  hatred,  q.  d.  odi  ex  animo),  they  have  become  a  burden  on  me  (im- 
plying that  they  were  not  so  at  first),  I  am  u-eary  of  bearing  (or  have  wearied 
myself  bearing  them). — Lowth's  version  months  is  too  indefinite  to  repre- 
sent D''ti'in,  which  denotes  the  beginnings  of  the  lunar  months,  observed  as 
sacred  times  under  the  law  of  Moses  (Num.  xxviii.  11 ;  x.  10).  Kticher 
supposes  they  are  mentioned  here  again  because  they  had  been  peculiarly 
abused  ;  but  Henderson  explains  the  repetition  better  as  a  rhetorical  epana- 
lepsis,  resuming  and  continuing  the  enumeration  in  another  form.  Heng- 
stenberg  has  shewn  (Christol.  vol.  iii.  p.  87)  that  DnyiD  is  apphed  in  Scrip- 
ture only  to  the  Sabbath,  passover,  pentecost,  day  of  atonement,  and  feast 
of  tabernacles.  The  common  version  of  the  second  clause  {they  are  a  trouble 
unto  nic)  is  too  vague.  The  noun  should  have  its  specific  sense  of  burden, 
loiui,  the  preposition  its  proper  local  sense  of  on,  and  the  verb  with  ?  its 


88  ISAIAH  I  i  Ykr.  15,  IG. 

usual  force,  as  siguifying  not  mere  existence  but  a  change  of  state,  in  which 
sense  it  is  thrice  used  in  this  very  chapter  (vers.  21,  22,  31).  The  last 
particular  is  well  expressed  by  the  Septuagint  {iyinrfitiTk  /i,o/)  and  Vulgate 
(facta  sunt  niihi),  and  the  other  two  by  Calvin  (superfucrunt  mihi  loco 
oneris),  Vitringa  (incumbunt  mihi  instar  oneris),  Lowth  (they  are  a  burden 
upon  me),  and  Gesenius  (sie  sind  mir  zur  Last) ;  but  neither  of  those  ver- 
sions gives  the  full  force  of  the  clause  in  all  its  parts.  The  Septuagint,  the 
Chaldee  Paraphrase,  and  Symmachus  take  NL*'3  in  the  sense  of  Jonfivincj, 
which  it  has  in  some  connections  ;  but  the  common  meaning  agi'ees  better 
with  the  parallel  expression,  load  or  burden. 

15.  Not  only  ceremonial  observances  but  even  prayer  was  rendered  useless 
by  the  sins  of  those  who  offered  it.  And  in  rjour  spreading  (when  you 
spread)  your  hmnh  (or  stretch  them  out  towards  heaven  as  a  gesture  of 
entreaty)  1  irill  hide  mine  eyes  from  you  (avert  my  face,  refuse  to  see  or 
hear,  not  only  in  ordinary  but)  also  irhen  ye  multi/dy  jyrayer  (by  fervent 
importunity  in  time  of  danger)  /  am  not  hearimj  (or  about  to  hear,  the  par- 
ticiple bringing  the  act  nearer  to  the  present  than  the  future  would  do). 
Your  hands  are  full  of  blood  (literally  bloods,  the  form  commonly  used  when 
the  reference  is  to  bloodshed  or  the  guilt  of  murder).  Thus  the  Prophet 
comes  back  to  the  point  from  which  he  set  out,  the  iniquity  of  Israel  as  the 
cause  of  his  calamities,  but  with  this  difference,  that  at  first  he  viewed  sin 
in  its  higher  aspect,  as  committed  against  God,  whereas  in  this  place  its 
injurious  effects  on  men  are  rendered  prominent. — By  multiplyiny  prayer 
Henderson  understands  the  (SaTroXoyla  or  vain  repetition  condemned  by 
Christ  as  a  customaiy  error  of  his  times  ;  but  this  would  make  the  threat- 
ening less  impressive.  The  force  of  25  as  here  used  {not  only  this  but,  or 
nay  more)  may  be  considered  as  included  in  the  old  English,  yea,  of  the 
common  version,  for  which  Lowth  and  Henderson  have  substituted  even.  The 
latter  also  takes  ''3  in  the  sense  of  thouyh,  without  effect  upon  the  meaning 
of  the  sentence,  and  suggests  that  the  preteri^  at  the  end  of  the  verse  de- 
notes habitual  action  ;  but  it  simply  denotes  previous  action,  or  that  their 
hands  were  already  full  of  blood.  Under  blood  or  murder  Calvin  supposes 
all  sins  of  violence  and  gross  injustice  to  be  comprehended  ;  but  although 
the  mention  of  the  highest  crime  against  the  person  may  suggest  the  others, 
they  can  hardly  be  included  in  the  meaning  of  the  word. — Junius  and 
Clericus  translate  D''P^  murders  (ca?dibus  plena?)  ;  but  the  literal  translation 
is  at  once  more  exact  and  more  expressive.  It  is  a  strange  opinion  men- 
tioned by  Fabricius  (Diss.  Phil.  Theol.  p.  329)  that  the  blood  here  meant  is 
the  blood  of  the  victims  hypocritically  offered. — For  the  form  Q?y')2  see 
Nordheimer,  §§  101,  2,  a.  47G. 

16.  Having  shewn  the  insufficiency  of  ceremonial  rites  and  even  of  more 
spiritual  duties  to  avert  or  cure  the  evils  which  the  people  had  brought  upon 
themselves  by  their  iniquities,  he  exhorts  them  to  abandon  these  and  urges 
reformation,  not  as  the  causa  qua  but  as  a  causa  sine  qua  non  of  deliverance 
and/estoration  to  God's  favour.  Wash  you  (-l^'np  a  word  appropriated  to 
ablution  of  the  body  as  distinguished  from  all  other  washings),  pu)4fy  your- 
selves (in  a  moral  or  figurative  sense,  as  appears  from  what  follows).  Re- 
move  the  evil  of  your  doinys  from  before  mine  eyes  (out  of  my  sight,  which 
could  only  be  done  by  putting  an  end  to  them,  an  idea  literally  expressed 
in  the  last  clause),  cease  to  do  evil. — Luther,  Gesenius,  and  most  of  the  late 
writers  render  yt  as  an  adjective,  your  evil  doinys ;  but  it  is  better  to 
retain  the  abstract  form  of  the  original,  with  Ewald,  Lowth,  Vitringa,  and 
the  ancient  versions. — In  some  of  the  older  versions  D^77yo  is  loosely  and 


Yee.  17,  18.]  ISAIAH  I  ,  89 

vanousl}'  rendered.  Thus  the  LXX.  have  souls,  the  Vulgate  thomjlus,  Cal- 
vin desires,  Luther  your  evil  nature.  The  meaning  of  the  terra  may  now  he 
looked  upon  as  settled. — Some  have  understood /Vo»t  before  mine  eyes  as  an 
exhortation  to  reform  not  only  in  the  sight  of  man  hut  in  the  sight  of  God  ; 
and  others  as  implying  that  their  sins  had  heen  committed  to  God's  face, 
that  is  to  say,  with  presumptuous  boldness.  But  the  true  meaning  seems 
to  be  the  obvious  and  simple  one  expressed  above.  Ivnobel  imagines  that 
the  idea  of  sin  as  a  pollution  had  its  origin  in  the  ablutions  of  the  law  ; 
but  it  is  perfectly  familiar  and  intelligible  wherever  conscience  is  at  all  en- 
lightened.— Aben  Ezra  explains  -ISM  as  the  Hithpael  of  nST,  to  which 
Hitzig  and  Henderson  object  that  this  species  is  w^anting  in  all  other  verbs 
beginning  wdth  that  letter,  and  that  according  to  analog}-  it  would  be  •13'i'tn. 
They  explain  it  therefore  as  the  Niphal  of  '^?T ;  but  Gesenius  (in  his  Lexi- 
con) objects  that  this  would  have  the  accent  on  the  penult.  Compare 
Nordheimer  §  77,  1.  c. 

17.  The  negative  exhortation  is  now  followed  by  a  positive  one.  Ceasing 
to  do  e-^-il  was  not  enough,  or  rather  was  not  possible,  without  beginning  to 
do  good.  Learn  to  do  good,  implying  that  they  never  yet  had  kno'mi  what 
it  was.  This  general  expression  is  explained  by  several  specifications, 
shewing  how  they  were  to  do  good.  Seek  judgment,  i.  e.  justice  ;  not  in  the 
abstract,  but  in  act ;  not  for  yourselves,  but  for  others  ;  be  not  content 
with  abstinence  from  wrong,  but  seek  opportunities  of  doing  justice,  espe- 
cially to  those  who  cannot  right  themselves.  Redress  ivrong,  judge  the  father- 
less, i.  e.  act  as  a  judge  for  his  benefit,  or  more  specifically,  do  him  justice  ; 
befriend  the  widow,  take  her  part,  espouse  her  cause.  Orphans  and  widows 
are  continually  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  special  objects  of  divine  compas- 
sion, and  as  representing  the  whole  class  of  helpless  innocents. — By  learn- 
ing to  do  good,  Musculus  and  Hitzig  understand  forming  the  habit  or 
accustoming  one's  self;  but  the  phrase  appears  to  have  a  more  emphatic 
meaning. — Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  Ewald,  and  Knobel,  take  P^n  ^^ 
the  active  sense  of  an  oppressor,  or  a  proud  and  wicked  man,  and  understand 
the  Prophet  as  exhorting  his  readers  to  condiict  or  guide  such,  i.  e.  to  re- 
claim them  from  their  e^dl  courses.  The  Septuagint,  the  Vulgate,  and  the 
Eabbins,  make  p^H  a  passive  participle,  and  the  exhortation  one  to  rescue 
the  oppressed  {hhouak  ddi/.o-o/Mvov,  subvenite  oppresso),  in  which  they  are 
followed  by  Luther,  Cahin,  Cocceius,  Kosenmiiller,  Henderson,  and  Um- 
breit.  Vitringa  adopts  Bochart's  derivation  of  the  word  from  |*??n  to  ferment 
(emendate  quod  corruptum  est)  ;  but  Maurer  comes  the  nearest  to  the  truth 
in  his  translation  (lequum  facite  iniquum).  The  form  of  the  word  seems 
to  identify  it  as  the  infinitive  of  ]'0n,  /.  q.  DDH,  to  be  violent,  to  do  ^-iolence,  to 
injm-e.  Thus  understood,  the  phrase  forms  a  link  betw-een  the  general 
expression  seek  justice  and  the  more  specific  one  do  justice  to  the  orphan. 
The  common  version  of  the  last  clause  [plead  for  the  widow)  seems  to  apply 
too  exclusively  to  advocates,  as  distinguished  from  judges. 

18.  Having  shewn  that  the  cause  of  their  ill- success  in  seeking  God  was 
in  themselves,  and  pointed  out  the  only  means  by  which  the  evil  could  be 
remedied,  he  now  invites  them  to  determine  by  experiment  on  which  side 
the  fault  of  their  destruction  lay,  promising  pardon  and  deliverance  to  the 
penitent,  and  threatening  total  ruin  to  the  disobedient,  vers.  18-20. — This 
verse  contains  an  invitation  to  discuss  the  question  whether  God  was  willing 
or  unwilling  to  shew  mercy,  implying  that  reason  as  well  as  justice  was  on 
his  side,  and  asserting  his  power  and  his  willingness  to  pardon  the  most 

Come  nov)  (a  common  formula  of  exhortation)  and  let  us 


'90  ISAIAH  I  Vee.  19-21. 

reason  (argue,  or  discuss  the  case)  together  (the  form  of  the  verb  denoting 
a  reciprocal  action),  saith  Jehovah,  Thoufjh  your  sins  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall 
he  lohite  as  snow;  thonf/h  they  be  red  as  crimson,  theij  shall  be  as  wool,  i.e. 
clean  wliite  wool.  Guilt  being  regarded  as  a  stain,  its  removal  denotes 
restoration  to  purity.  The  implied  conclusion  of  the  reasoning  is  that 
God's  willingness  to  pardon  threw  the  blame  of  their  destruction  on  them- 
selves.— Gesenius  understands  this  verse  as  a  threatening  that  God  would 
contend  with  them  in  the  way  of  vengeance,  and  blot  out  their  sins  by  con- 
dign punishment ;  but  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  reciprocal  meaning  of 
the  verb.  Umbreit  regards  the  last  clause  as  a  threatening  that  their  sins, 
however  deeply  coloured  or  disguised,  should  be  discoloured,  i.e.  brought 
to  light ;  an  explanation  inconsistent  vt^Jth  the  natural  and  scriptural  usage 
of  nJiite  and  red  to  signify  innocence  and  guilt,  especially  that  of  murder. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Augusti  make  the  verbs  in  the  last  clause  interrogative: 
"Shall  they  be  white  as  snow?"  j.  ^.  can  I  so  regard  them?  implying 
that  God  would  estimate  them  rightly  and  reward  them  justly.  This,  in 
the  absence  of  the  interrogative  particle,  is  gratuitous  and  arbitrary. 
Clericus  understands  the  first  clause  as  a  proposition  to  submit  to  punish- 
ment (turn  agite,  nos  castigari  patiamur,  ait  enim  Jehova)  ;  but  although 
the  verb  might  be  a  simple  passive,  this  construction  arbitrarily  supposes 
two  speakers  in  the  verse,  and  supplies  for  after  the  first  verb,  besides 
making  the  two  clauses  inconsistent ;  for  if  they  were  pardoned,  why  sub- 
mit to  punishment  ?  According  to  Kimchi,  the  word  translated  crimson  is 
a  stronger  one  than  that  translated  scarlet;  but  the  two  are  commonly 
combined  to  denote  one  colour,  and  are  here  separated  only  as  poetical 
equivalents. 

19.  The  unconditional  promise  is  now  qualified  and  yet  enlarged.  If 
obedient,  they  should  not  only  escape  punishment  but  be  highly  favoured. 
If  ye  consent  to  my  terms,  and  hear  my  commands,  implying  obedience, 
the  good  of  the  land,  its  choicest  products,  ye  shall  eat,  instead  of  seeing 
them  devoured  by  strangers. — Luther  and  others  understand  consent  and 
hear  as  a  hendiadys  for  consent  to  hear  (wollt  ihr  mir  gehorchen);  but  this 
is  forbidden  by  the  parallel  expression  in  the  next  verse,  where  refuse  and 
rebel  cannot  mean  refuse  to  rebel,  but  each  verb  has  its  independent  mean- 
ing. LXX.  eav  SsXjjrg  xu)  ilauKoijGi^ri  fj,ov,  Vulg.  si  volueritis  et  audieritis. 
So  Gesenius,  Ewald,  &c. 

20.  This  is  the  converse  of  the  nineteenth  verse,  a  threat  corresponding 
to  the  promise.  And  If  ye  refuse  to  comply  with  my  conditions,  and  rebel, 
continue  to  resist  my  authority,  by  the  sirord  of  the  enemy  shall  ye  be  eaten. 
This  is  no  human  menace,  but  a  sure  prediction, /o/-  tlie  mouth  of  Jehovah 
speaks,  not  man's.  Or  the  sense  may  be,  the  mouth  of  Jehovah  has  spoken 
or  ordained  it.  (Targ.  Jon.  p  1T3  "'"'S  X"1D''0,  the  word  of  Jehovah  has  so 
decreed.) — According  to  Gesenius,  -I^I^^Jil  literally  means  ye  shall  be  caused 
to  he  devoured  by  the  swovd,  i.  e.  I  cause  the  sword  to  devour  you.  But,  as 
Hitzig  observes,  the  passive  causative,  according  to  analogy,  would  mean 
ye  shall  he  caused  to  devour,  and  so  he  renders  it  (so  miisset  ihr  das 
Scbwerdt  verzehren).  But  in  every  other  case,  where  such  a  metaphor 
occurs,  the  sword  is  not  said  to  be  eaten,  but  to  eat.  (See  Deut.  xxxii.  ■12; 
Isa.  xxxiv.  G;  2  Sam.  ii.  26.)  The  truth  is  that  '?^^f  is  nowhere  else  a 
causative  at  all,  but  a  simple  passive,  or  at  most  an  intensive  passive  of 
'pax  (see  Exod.  iii.  2  ;  Neh.  ii.  3,  13). 

21.  Here  the  Prophet  seems  to  pause  for  a  reply,  and  on  receiving  no 
response  to  the  promises  and  invitations  of  the  foregoing  context,  bursts 


Yer.  22-24.]  I8AIAE  I.  91 

forth  into  a  sudden  exclamation  at  the  change  which  Israel  has  undergone, 
which  he  then  describes  both  in  figurative  and  literal  expressions,  vers. 
21-23.  In  the  verse  before  us  he  contrasts  her  former  state,  as  the  chaste 
bride  of  Jehovah,  with  her  present  pollution,  the  ancient  home  of  justice 
with  the  present  haunt  of  cruelty  and  violence.  How  has  she  become  an 
harlot  (faithless  to  her  covenant  with  Jehovah),  the  faithful  city  (i^J^i? 
<!TdXig,  including  the  ideas  of  a  city  and  a  state,  urbs  et  civitas,  the  body 
politic,  the  church,  of  which  Jerusalem  was  the  centre  and  metropolis), /»^^ 
of  justice  (/.  e.  once  full),  righteousness  lodged  (/.  e.  habitually,  had  its  home, 
resided)  in  it,  and  now  murderers,  as  the  worst  class  of  violent  wrong-doers, 
whose  name  suggests,  though  it  does  not  j)roperly  include,  all  others. — 
Kimchi  and  Ivnobel  suppose  a  particular  allusion  to  the  introduction  of 
idolatry,  a  forsaking  of  Jehovah  the  true  husband  for  paramours  or  idols. 
But  although  this  specific  application  of  the  figure  occurs  elsewhere,  and  is 
extended  by  Hosea  into  allegory,  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  for  restricting 
the  expressions  here  used  to  idolatry,  although  it  may  be  included. — The 
particle  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  properly  interrogative,  but  like  the 
English  hoic  is  also  used  to  express  surprise.  "How  has  she  become?" 
i.  e.  how  could  she  possibly  become  ?  how  strange  that  she  should  become! 
— For  the  form  ;nx|?.p  see  Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  93,  2.  Ewald,  §  406.  For 
the  tense  of  P?:  Nordh.  §  967,  1,  b. 

22.  The  change,  which  had  just  been  represented  under  the  figure  of 
adultery,  is  now  expressed  by  that  of  adulteration,  fii'st  of  silver,  then  of 
wine.  Thy  silver  (addressing  the  unfaithful  church  or  city)  is  become  dross 
(alio}',  base  metal),  //;//  tvine  u-eakencd  (literally  cut,  mutilated)  with  icater. 
Compare  the  words  of  Martial,  scelus  est  jugulare  Falemum.  The  essential 
idea  seems  to  be  that  of  impairing  strength.  The  Septuagint  applies  this 
text  in  a  literal  sense  to  dishonest  arts  in  the  sale  of  wines  and  the  exchange 
of  money.  O/'  xd-yjXoi  atv  fiinycvai  rcu*  ohoti  vSart.  But  this  interpretation, 
besides  its  unworthiness  and  incongruity,  is  set  aside  by  the  Prophet's 
own  explanation  of  his  figures,  in  the  next  verse. 

23.  The  same  idea  is  now  expressed  in  literal  terms,  and  with  special 
apphcation  to  magistrates  and  rulers.  They  who  were  bound  ofiicially 
to  suppress  disorder  and  protect  the  helpless,  were  themselves  greedy  of 
gain,  rebellious  against  God,  and  tyrannical  towards  man.  Thy  rulers  are 
rebels  and  fellows  of  thieves  (not  merely  like  them  or  belonging  to  the  same 
class,  but  accomplices,  partakers  of  their  sin),  every  one  of  them  loving  a 
bribe  (the  participle  denoting  present  and  habitual  action),  a)id  pursuing  re- 
wards  (D''JOX'  compensations.  LXX.  avra'Troboi/ja,  Sj'mm,  o-iioiZai).  The 
fatherless  (as  being  unable  to  reward  them,  or  as  an  object  of  cupidity  to 
others)  they  judge  not,  and  the  cause  of  the  widow  cometh  not  unto  them,  or 
before  them :  they  will  not  hear  it ;  they  will  not  act  as  judges  for  their 
benefit.  They  are  not  simply  unjust  judges,  they  are  no  judges  at  all,  they 
will  not  act  as  such,  except  when  they  can  profit  by  it.  (J.  D.  Michaelis  : 
dem  Waisen  halten  sie  kein  Gericht.)  liulers  and  rebels  is  a  sufficient 
approximation  to  the  alleged  paronomasia  in  Q"''?'pi?  1!")'^^,  a  gratuitous  and 
vain  attempt  to  copy  which  is  made  by  Gesenius  (deine  Vorgesetzten  sind 
widersetzlich)  and  Ewald  (deine  Herren  sind  Narren!). — Ivnobel  supposes 
the  rebellion  here  meant  to  be  that  of  which  Judah  was  guilty  in  becoming 
dependent  upon  Assyria  (comp.  chap.  xxx.  1).  But  there  is  nothing  to 
restrict  the  aplication  of  the  terms,  which  simply  mean  that  instead  of  sup- 
pressing rebellion  they  were  rebels  themselves. 

24.  To  this  description  of  the  general  corruption  the  Prophet  now  adds 


92  ISAIAH  I  [Yer.  To,  2G. 

a  promise  of  purgation,  wliich  is  at  the  same  time  a  threatening  of  sorer 
judgments,  as  the  appointed  means  by  which  the  church  was  to  be  restored 
to  her  original  condition,  vers.  2-i-31. — In  this  verse,  the  destruction  of 
God's  enemies  is  represented  as  a  necessary  satisfaction  to  his  justice. 
Therefore,  because  the  very  fountains  of  justice  have  thus  become  corrupt, 
saith  ike  Lord,  the  word  properly  so  rendered,  Jeliovah  of  Hostx,  the  eternal 
Sovereign,  the  niighti/  one  of  Israel,  the  almighty  God  who  is  the  God  of 
Israel,  Ah,  an  inteijection  expressing  both  displeasure  and  concern,  /  vill 
comfort  myself,  ease  or  relieve  myself  0/ ?;/y  adversaries,  literally, /ra/n  them, 
i.e.  by  ridding  myself  of  them,  and  I  uill  avenrfe  vujself  of  mine  enemies,  not 
foreign  foes,  of  whom  there  is  no  mention  in  the  context,  but  the  enemies 
of  God  among  the  Jews  themselves. — Cocceius  understands  by  7N1C"'  "i"'2ti 
the  champion  or  hero  of  Israel,  and  Kuobel  the  mightiest  in  Israel;  but  the 
fii'st  word  seems  clearly  to  denote  an  attribute  of  God,  and  the  second  his 
relation  to  his  people.  Henderson  translates  the  phrase  Protector  of  Israel ; 
but  this  idea,  though  implied,  is  not  expressed.  The  latest  versions  follow 
Junius  and  Tremellius  in  giving  to  Q^^  its  proper  form  as  a  passive  parti- 
ciple, used  as  a  noun,  like  the  Latin  dictum,  and  appUed  exclusively  to 
divine  communications.  Henderson  :  Hence  the  announcement  of  the  Lord. 
So  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Umbreit. 

25.  The  mingled  promise  and  threatening  is  repeated  under  one  of  the 
figures  used  in  ver.  22.  The  adulterated  sjlver  must  be  purified  by  the 
separation  of  its  impure  particles.  And  I  irill  turn  my  hand  upon  thee,  i.e. 
take  thee  in  hand,  address  myself  to  thy  case,  and  trill  purge  out  thy  dross 
like  purity  itself,  i.e.  most  purely,  thoroughly,  and  will  take  away  all  thine 
alloy,  tin,  lead,  or  other  base  metal  found  in  combination  with  the  precious 
ores. — Luther,  Junius,  and  Tremellius  render  ?y  against,  and  make  the 
first  clause  wholly  minatory  in  its  import.  But  although  to  turn  the  Itmul 
has  elsewhere  an  unfavourable  sense  (Ps.  Ixxxi.  15  ;  Amos  i.  8),  it  does  not 
of  itself  express  it,  but  simply  means  to  take  in  hand,  address  one's  self  to 
anything,  make  it  the  object  of  attention.  (J.  D.  Michaelis  :  in  Arbeit 
nehmen.)  It  appears  to  have  been  used  in  this  place  to  convey  both  a  pro- 
mise and  a  threatening,  which  run  together  through  this  whole  context. 
Augusti  and  the  later  Germans  use  the  ambiguous  term  gegen  which  has 
both  a  hostile  and  a  local  meaning. — The  Targum  of  Jonathan,  followed  by 
Kimchi,  Schmidius,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  the  latest  Germans,  makes  "13  a 
noun  meaning  potash  or  the  vegetable  alkali  used  in  the  smelting  of  metals. 
Henderson:  as  nith  potash.  The  usual  sense  of  purity  is  retained  by 
Luther  (auf's  lauterste),  the  Enghsh  Version  (purely),  Gesenius  (rein),  and 
Barnes  (wholly).  The  particle  is  taken  in  a  local  sense  by  the  Septuagint 
(fe/'i,-  xa^agoi/),  Vulgate  (ad  purum),  Cocceius  (ad  puritatem),  Calvin  and 
Vitringa  (ad  liquidum),  and  the  clause  is  paraphrased,  as  expressing  resto- 
ration to  a  state  of  purity,  by  Junius  (ut  justa)  puritati  rcstituam  te),  and 
Augusti  (bis  es  rein  wird).  But  this  is  at  variance  with  the  usage  of  the 
particle.  The  conjectural  emendations  of  Clericus  C^^  like  a  furnace), 
Seeker,  and  Lowth  ("i33  in  the  furnace)  are  perfectly  gratuitous. 

2G.  Here  again  the  figurative  promise  is  succeeded  by  a  literal  one  of 
restoration  to  a  former  state  of  purity,  to  be  efiected  not  by  the  conversion 
of  the  wicked  rulers,  but  by  filling  their  places  with  better  men.  And  I  trill 
restore,  bring  back,  cause  to  return,  thy  judges,  rulers,  as  at  Jirst,  in  the 
earliest  and  best  days  of  the  commonwealth,  and  thy  counsellors,  ministers 
of  state,  as  in  the  beginning,  after  which  it  shall  be  called  to  thee,  a  Hebrew 
idiom  for  thou  shalt  be  called,  i.e.  deservedly,  with  truth,  City  of  Righteous- 


Ver.  27,  28.]  ISAIAH  I  93 

nesi!^,  a  faithful  State.  There  is  here  a  twofold  allusion  to  ver.  21.  She 
who  from  being  a  faithful  wife  had  become  an  adulteress  or  harlot,  should 
again  be  what  she  was  ;  and  justice  which  once  dwelt  in  her  should  return 
to  its  old  home. — It  is  an  ingenious  but  superfluous  conjecture  of  Vitringa, 
that  Jerusalem  was  anciently  called  P?jy  as  well  as  DX^'  (Gen.  xiv.  18), 
since  the  same  king  bore  the  name  of  p';iy"''??P  (king  of  righteousness) 
and  D!?k^'  %Q  (king  of  peace),  and  a  later  king  (Josh.  x.  1)  was  called  P^V^JI^? 
(lord  of  righteousness).  The  meaning  of  the  last  clause  would  then  be  that 
the  city  should  again  deserve  its  ancient  name,  which  is  substantially  its 
meaning  now,  even  without  supposing  an  allusion  so  retined  and  far-fetched. 

27.  Thus  far  the  promise  to  God's  faithful  people  and  the  threatening 
to  his  enemies  among  them  had  been  intermingled,  or  so  expressed  as  to 
involve  each  other.  Thus  the  promise  of  purification  to  the  silver  involved 
a  threatening  of  destruction  to  the  di-oss.  But  now  the  two  elements  of 
the  prediction  are  exhibited  distinctly,  and  first  the  promise  to  the  church. 
Zion,  the  chosen  people,  as  a  whole,  here  considered  as  consisting  of  be- 
lievers only,  shall  he  redeemed,  delivered  from  destruction,  injudyment,  i.e. 
in  the  exercise  of  justice  upon  God's  part,  and  her  converts,  those  of  her 
who  return  to  God  by  true  repentance,  in  righteousness,  here  used  as  an 
equivalent  to  justice. — Gesenius  and  the  other  modem  Germans  adopt  the 
explanation  given  in  the  Targum,  which  assumes  in  judr/ment  ami  in  right- 
eousness to  mean  by  the  practice  of  righteousness  on  the  part  of  the  people. 
Calvin  regards  the  same  words  as  expressive  of  God's  rectitude,  which 
would  not  suffer  the  innocent  to  perish  with  the  guilty.  But  neither  of  these 
interpretations  is  so  natural  in  this  connection  as  that  which  understands 
the  verse  to  mean  that  the  very  same  events,  by  which  the  divine  justice 
was  to  manifest  itself  in  the  destruction  of  the  wicked,  should  be  the  occa- 
sion and  the  means  of  a  deliverance  to  Zion  or  the  true  people  of  God. — 
The  Septuagint,  Peshito,  and  Luther,  understand  by  n''3ti'  her  captirii>/  or 
captives  (as  if  from  ^3^),  Calvin  and  others  her  returning  captives  (qui  re- 
ducentur  ad  eam) ;  but  the  great  majority  of  writers,  old  and  new,  take 
the  word  in  a  spiritual  sense,  which  it  frequently  has  elsewhere.  See  for 
example  chap.  vi.  10. 

28.  The  other  element  is  now  brought  out,  viz.  the  destruction  of  the 
wicked,  which  was  to  be  simultaneous  and  coincident  with  the  deliverance 
promised  to  God's  people  in  the  verse  preceding.  And  the  breaking,  crush- 
ing, utter  ruin,  of  apostates,  revolters,  deserters  from  Jehovah,  and  sinners, 
is  or  shall  be  together  i.e.  at  the  same  time  vdih.  Zion's  redemption,  and  the 
forsakers  of  Jehovah,  an  equivalent  expression  to  apostates  in  the  first  clause, 
shall  cease,  come  to  an  end,  be  totally  destroyed.  The  terms  of  this  verse 
are  appropriate  to  all  kinds  of  sin,  but  seem  'to  be  peculiarly  descriptive  of 
idolatry,  as  defection  or  desertion  from  the  true  God  to  idols,  and  thus  pre- 
pare the  way  for  the  remainder  of  the  chapter,  in  which  that  class  of  trans- 
gressors are  made  prominent. — Umbreit  supplies  no  verb  in  the  first  clause, 
but  reads  it  as  an  exclamation ;  "  Ruin  to  apostates  and  sinners'  all  together!  " 
which  is  extremely  harsh  without  a  preposition  before  the  nouns.  Ewald, 
more  grammatically,  "  Ruin  of  the  evil-doers  and  sinners  altogether  !  "  But 
the  only  natural  construction  is  the  common  one. — Some  wi-iters  under- 
stand together  as  expressing  the  simultaneous  destruction  of  the  two  classes 
mentioned  here,  apostates  and  sinners,  or  of  these  considered  as  one  class 
and  the  forsakers  of  Jehovah  as  another.  But  the  expression  is  far  more 
emphatic,  and  agrees  fiir  better  with  the  context,  if  we  understand  it  as  con- 
necting this  destruction  with  the  deliverance  in  ver.  27,  and  as  being  a 


94  ISAIAH  I.  [Ver.  29,  30. 

final  repetition  of  the  truth  stated  in  so  many  forms,  that  the  same  judg- 
ments which  destroyed  the  wicked  should  redeem  the  righteous,  or  in  other 
words,  that  the  purification  of  the  church  could  be  effected  only  by  the 
excision  of  her  wicked  members. — Junius  differs  from  all  others  in  sup- 
posing the  metaphor  of  ver.  25  to  be  here  resumed.  "  And  the  fragments 
p5L*')  of  apostates  and  of  sinners  likewise,  and  of  those  who  forsake 
Jehovah,  shall  fail  or  be  utterly  destroyed," 

29.  From  the  final  destruction  of  idolaters  the  Prophet  now  reverts  to 
their  present  security  and  confidence  in  idols,  which  he  tells  them  shall  be 
put  to  shame  and  disappointed.  For  they  shall  he  ashamed  of  the  oaks  or 
terebinths  ivhich  ye  have  desired,  and  ye  sJiall  be  confounded  for  the  gardens 
which  ye  hare  chosen  as  places  of  idolatrous  worship.  Paulus  and  Hitzig 
think  that  nothing  more  is  here  predicted  than  the  loss  of  the  fine  pleasure- 
grounds  in  which  the  wealthy  Jews  delighted.  But  why  should  this  part 
of  their  property  be  specified  in  threatening  them  with  total  destruction  ? 
And  why  should  they  be  ashamed  of  these  favourite  possessions  and  con- 
founded on  account  of  them  ?  As  these  are  terms  constantly  employed  to 
express  the  frustration  of  religious  trust,  and  as  groves  and  gardens  are 
continually  spoken  of  as  chosen  scenes  of  idol- worship  (see  for  example 
chaps.  Ixv.  3;  Ixvi.  17;  Ezek.  vi.  13;  Hos.  iv.  13),  there  can  belittle 
doubt  that  the  common  opinion  is  the  true  one,  namely,  that  both  this 
verse  and  the  one  preceding  have  particular  allusion  to  idolatry — Yitringa 
understands  the  first  clause  thus  :  they  (the  Jews  of  a  future  generation) 
shall  he  ashamed  of  the  oaks  uhich  ye  (the  contemporaries  of  the  Prophet) 
have  desired.  It  is  much  more  natural  however  to  regard  it  as  an  instance 
of  enallage  personcr  (Gesen.  §  134,  3),  or  to  construe  the  first  verb  inde- 
finitely, they,  i.e.  men  in  general,  people,  or  the  like,  shall  he  ashamed,  &c., 
which  construction  is  adopted  by  all  the  recent  German  writers  (Gesenius : 
zu  Schanden  wird  man,  u.  s.  w.) — Knobcl  renders  *?  at  the  beginning  so 
that,  which  is  wholly  unnecessary,  as  the  verse  gives  a  reason  for  the  way 
in  which  the  Prophet  had  spoken  of  persons  now  secure  and  flourishing, 
and  the  proper  meaning  of  the  particle  is  therefore  perfectly  appropriate. — 
Lowth  renders  Dv''X  Ue.res,  Gesenius  and  the  other  Germans  Terehinthen, 
which  is  no  doubt  botanically  accurate  ;  but  in  English  oak  may  be  retained 
as  more  poetical,  and  as  the  tree  which,  together  with  the  terebinth,  com- 
poses almost  all  the  groves  of  Palestine. — The  proposition  before  oaks  and 
gardens  may  imply  removal />"o/??  them,  but  is  more  probably  a  mere  con- 
nective of  the  verb  with  the  object  or  occasion  of  the  action,  like  the  of  and 
for  in  English. 

30.  The  mention  of  trees  and  gardens,  as  places  of  idolatrous  worship, 
suggests  a  beautiful  comparison,  under  which  the  destruction  of  the  idolaters 
is  again  set  forth.  They  who  chose  trees  and  gardens,  in  preference  to 
God's  appointed  place  of  worship,  shall  themselves  be  like  trees  and  gar- 
dens, but  in  the  most  alarming  sense.  For,  in  answer  to  the  tacit  question 
why  they  should  be  ashamed  and  confounded  for  their  oaks  and  gardens, 
ye  yourselves  shall  he  like  an  oak  or  terebinth,  fadiny,  decaying,  in  its  leaf 
or  as  to  its  leaf,  and  like  a  garden  which  has  no  vater,  a  lively  emblem,  to 
an  oriental  reader,  of  entire  desolation. — Some  writers  understand  the 
prophet  to  allude  to  the  terebinth  when  dead,  on  the  ground  that  it  never 
sheds  its  leaves  when  living ;  but  according  to  Robinson  and  Smith  (Bib. 
Ees.  vol.  iii.  p.  15),  the  terebinth  or  "  butm  is  not  an  evergreen,  as  is  often 
represented ;  its  small  feathered  lancet-shaped  leaves  fall  in  the  autumn 
and  are  renewed  in  the  spring." — Both  here  and  in  the  foregoing  verse, 


Ver.  31.]  ISAIAH  II.-IV.  95 

Eaiobel  supposes  there  is  special  allusion  to  the  gardens  in  the  valley 
of  Hinnom,  where  Abaz  sacrificed  to  Moloch  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  3 ;  Isa.  xxx. 
88,  compared  with  chap.  xxii.  7),  and  a  prediction  of  their  being  wasted  by 
the  enemy ;  but  this,  to  say  the  least,  is  not  a  necessary  exposition  of  the 
Prophet's  general  expressions. — For  the  construction  of  n?V  J^<.?.J,  see 
Gesenius,  §  116,  3. 

31.  This  verse  contains  a  closing  threat  of  sudden,  total,  instantaneous 
destruction  to  the  Jewish  idolaters,  to  be  occasioned  by  the  very  things 
which  they  preferred  to  God,  and  in  which  they  confided.  And  the  strong, 
the  mighty  man,  alluding  no  doubt  to  the  unjust  rulers  of  the  previous  con- 
text, shall  become  tow,  an  exceedingly  inflammable  substance,  and  his  ivork, 
his  idols,  often  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  the  work  of  men's  hands,  shall 
become  a  spark,  the  means  and  occasion  of  destruction  to  their  worshippers, 
and  they  shall  hum  hath  of  them  together,  and  there  shall  he  no  one  quenching 
or  to  quench  them. — All  the  ancient  versions  treat  pn  as  an  abstract, 
meaning  strength,  which  agrees  well  with  its  form,  resembling  that  of  an 
infinitive  or  verbal  noun.  But  even  in  that  case  the  abstract  must  be  used 
for  a  concrete,  i.e.  strength  for  strong,  which  last  is  the  sense  given  to  the 
word  itself  by  all  the  modern  writers.  Calvin  and  others  understand  by 
the  strong  one  the  idol  viewed  as  a  protector  or  a  tutelary  god,  and  by  wVZ 
his  maker  and  worshipper,  an  interpretation  which  agrees  in  sense  with  the 
one  given  above,  but  inverts  the  terms,  making  the  idol  to  be  burnt  by  the 
idolater,  and  not  vice  versa.  But  why  should  the  worshipper  burn  himself 
with  his  idol?  A  far  more  coherent  and  impressive  sense  is  yielded  by  the 
other  exposition. — Gesenius,  Hitzig,  andHendewerk  suppose  the  ivork  pVh 
as  in  Jer.  xxli.  13),  by  which  the  strong  man  is  consumed,  to  be  his  con- 
duct in  general,  Junius  his  efibrt  to  resist  God,  Yitringa  his  contrivances 
and  means  of  safety.  But  the  frequent  mention  of  idols  as  the  work  of 
men's  hands*,  and  the  prominence  given  to  idolatry  in  the  immediately  pre- 
ceding context,  seem  to  justify  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  in  attributing 
to  ''y's  that  specific  meaning  here,  and  in  understanding  the  whole  verse  as 
a  prediction  that  the  very  gods,  in  whom  the  strong  men  of  Jerusalem  now 
trusted,  should  involve  their  worshippers  and  makers  with  themselves  iiL 
total,  instantaneous,  irrecoverable  ruin. 


CHAPTERS  II.  III.  IV. 

These  chapters  constitute  the  second  prophecy,  the  two  grand  themes 
of  which  are  the  reign  of  the  Messiah  and  intervening  judgments  on  the 
Jews  for  their  iniquities.  The  first  and  greatest  of  these  subjects,  occupies 
the  smallest  space,  but  stands  both  at  the  opening  and  the  close  of  the  whole 
prophecy.  Considered  in  relation  to  its  subject,  it  may  therefore  be  conve- 
niently divided  into  three  unequal  parts.  In  the  first,  the  Prophet  foretells 
the  future  exaltation  of  the  church  and  the  accession  of  the  Gentiles,  chap, 
ii.  1-4.  In  the  second,  he  sets  forth  the  actual  condition  of  the  church  and 
its  ine-sdtable  consequences,  chap.  ii.  5-iv.  1.  In  the  third,  he  reverts  to  its 
pure,  safe,  and  glorious  condition  under  the  Messiah,  chap.  iv.  2-6.  The 
division  of  the  chapters  is  peculiarly  unfortunate,  the  last  verse  of  the  second 
and  the  first  of  the  fourth  being  both  dissevered  from  their  proper  context. 
The  notion  Ihat  these  chapters  contain  a  series  of  detached  predictions 
(Koppe,  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt)  is  now  universally  rejected  even  by  the  Ger- 
mans, who  consider  the  three  chapters,  if  not  the  fifth  (Hitzig),  as  forminc 


96  ISAIAH  II. 

one  broken  prophecy.  As  the  state  of  things  which  it  describes  could 
scarcely  have  existed  in  the  prosperous  reigns  of  Uzziah  and  Jotham,  or  in 
the  pious  reign  of  Hezekiah,  it  is  referred  with  much  probability  to  the  reign 
of  Aliaz  (Gesenius,  Ewakl,  Henderson,  &c.),  when  Judah  was  dependent 
on  a  foreign  power  and  corrupted  by  its  intercourse  with  heathenism.  The 
particular  grounds  of  this  conclusion  will  appear  in  the  course  of  the  inter- 
pretation. 


CHAPTEK  II. 

This  chapter  contains  an  introductoiy  prediction  of  the  reign  of  the  Mes- 
siah, and  the  first  part  of  a  threatening  against  Judah. 

After  a  title  similar  to  that  in  chap.  i.  1,  the  Prophet  sees  the  church,  at 
some  distant  period,  exalted  and  conspicuous,  and  the  nations  resorting  to 
it  for  instruction  in  the  true  religion,  as  a  consequence  of  which  he  sees  war 
cease  and  universal  peace  prevail,  vers.  2-4.       _ 

These  verses  are  found,  with  very  little  variation,  in  the  fourth  chapter 
of  Micah  (vers.  1-3),  to  explain  which  some  suppose,  that  a  motto  or  quota- 
tion has  been  accidentally  transferred  from  the  margin  to  the  text  of  Isaiah 
(Justi,  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  Credner) ;  others,  that  both  Prophets  quote 
from  Joel  (Vogel,  Hitzig,  Ewald) ;  others,  that  both  quote  from  an  older 
wi-iter  now  unknown  (Koppe,  Kosenmiiller,  Maurer,  De  Wette,  Knobel)  ; 
others  that  Micah  quotes  from  Isaiah  (Vitringa,  Lowth,  Beckhaus,  Um- 
breit)  ;  others,  that  Isaiah  quotes  from  Micah  (J.  D.  MichaeUs,  Gesenius, 
Hendewerk,  Henderson).  This  diversity  of  judgment  may  at  least  suffice 
to  shew  how  vain  conjecture  is  in  such  a  cfise.  The  close  connection  of 
the  passage  with  the  context,  as  it  stands  in  Micah,  somewhat  favours  the 
conclusion  that  Isaiah  took  the  text  or  theme  of  his  prediction  from  the 
younger  though  contemporary  prophet.  The  verbal  variations  may  be  best 
explained,  however,  by  supposing  that  they  both  adopted  a  traditional  pre- 
diction current  among  the  people  in  their  day,  or  that  both  received  the 
words  directly  from  the  Holy  Spirit.  So  long  as  we  have  reason  to  regard 
both  places  as  authentic  and  inspired,  it  matters  httle  what  is  the  literary 
histoiy  of  either. 

At  the  close  of  this  prediction,  whether  borrowed  or  original,  the  Prophet 
suddenly  reverts  to  the  condition  of  the  church  in  his  own  times,  so  different 
from  that  which  had  been  just  foretold,  and  begins  a  description  of  the  pre- 
sent guilt  and  future  punishment  of  Judah,  which  extends  not  only  through 
this  chapter  but  the  next,  including  the  first  verse  of  the  fourth.  The  part 
contained  in  the  remainder  of  this  chapter  may  be  subdi\aded  into  two  un- 
equal portions,  one  containing  a  description  of  the  sin,  the  other  a  prediction 
of  the  punishment. 

The  first  begins  with  an  exhortation  to  the  Jews  themselves  to  walk  in 
that  light  which  the  Gentiles  were  soeageriy  to  seek  hereafter,  ver.  5.  The 
Prophet  then  explains  this  exhortation  by  describing  three  great  evils  which 
the  foreign  alliances  of  Judah  had  engendered,  namely,  superstitious  prac- 
tices and  occult  arts:  unbeheving  dependence  upon  foreign  wealth  and 
power  ;  and  idolatry  itself,  vers.  6-8. 

The  rest  of  the  chapter  has  respect  to  the  punishment  of  these  great  sins. 
This  is  first  described  generally  as  humiliation,  such  as  they  deserved  who 
humbled  themselves  to  idols,  and  such  as  tended  to  the  exclusive  exaltation 
of  Jehovah,  both  by  contrast  and  by  the  display  of  his  natural  and  moral 


Veb.  1,  2.]  ISAIAH  II.  97 

attributes,  vers.  9-11.  This  general  threatening  is  then  amplified  in  a  de- 
tailed enumeration  of  exalted  objects  which  would  be  brought  low,  ending 
again  with  a  prediction  of  Jehovah's  exaltation  in  the  same  words  as  before, 
so  as  to  form  a  kind  of  choral  or  strophical  arrangement,  vers.  12-17.  The 
destruction  or  rather  the  rejection  of  idols,  as  contemptible  and  useless,  is 
then  explicitly  foretold,  as  an  accompanying  circumstance  of  men's  flight 
from  the  avenging  presence  of  Jehovah,  vers.  18-21.  Here  again  the 
strophical  arrangement  reappears  in  the  precisely  similar  conclusions  of  the 
nineteenth  and  twenty-first  verses,  so  that  the  twenty-second  is  as  clearly 
unconnected  with  this  chapter  in  form,  as  it  is  closely  connected  with  the 
next  in  sense. 

1.  This  is  the  title  of  the  second  prophecy,  chaps,  ii.-iv.  The  ivord, 
revelation  or  divine  communication,  ivhich  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz  smc, 
perceived,  received  by  inspiration,  concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem.  As 
word  is  here  a  synonjone  oi  vision  in  chap.  i.  1,  there  is  no  need  of  render- 
ing 13"?  what,  thing,  or  things  (Luth.  Cler.  Henders.),  or  nm  jn-oj^hesied 
or  ivas  revealed  (Targ.  Lowth,  Ges.),  in  order  to  avoid  the  supposed  incon- 
gruity of  seeing  a  word.  For  the  technical  use  of  ivord  and  vision  in  the 
sense  of  proj)hecy,  see  1  Sam.  iii.  1,  Jer.  xviii.  18. — The  Septuagint,  which 
renders  ?y  against  in  chap.  i.  1,  renders  it  here  concerning,  and  on  this 
distinction,  which  is  wholly  arbitrary,  Cyril  gravely  comments. — Hende- 
werk's  assertion  that  the  titles,  in  which  nTH  and  ptn  occur,  are  by  a  later 
hand,  is  perfectly  gratuitous. 

2.  The  prophecy  begins  with  an  abrupt  prediction  of  the  exaltation  of 
the  church,  the  confluence  of  nations  to  it,  and  a  general  pacification  as 
the  consequence,  vers.  2-4.  In  this  verse  the  Prophet  sees  the  church  per- 
manently placed  in  a  conspicuous  position,  so  as  to  be  a  source  of  attraction 
to  surrounding  nations.  To  express  this  idea,  he  makes  use  of  tei-ms  Avhich 
are  strictly  applicable  only  to  the  local  habitation  of  the  church  under  the 
old  economy.  Instead  of  sajang,  in  modern  phraseology,  that  the  church, 
as  a  society,  shall  become  conspicuous  and  attract  all  nations,  he  represents 
the  mountain  upon  which  the  temple  stood  as  being  raised  and  fixed  above 
the  other  mountains,  so  as  to  be  visible  in  all  directions.  Aiid  it  shall  be 
(happen,  come  to  pass,  a  prefatory  formula  of  constant  use  in  prophecy)  in 
the  end  (or  latter  part)  of  the  days  [i.  e.  hereafter)  the  mountain  of  Jehovah's 
house  {i.  e.  mount  Zion,  in  the  widest  sense,  including  mount  Moriah,  where 
the  temple  stood)  shall  he  established  (permanently  fixed)  in  the  head  of  the 
mountains  [i.  e.  above  them),  and  exalted  from  (away  from  and  by  implica- 
tion ???ore  than  or  higher  than)  the  hills  (a  poetical  equivalent  to  mountains), 
and  all  the  nations  shall  flow  unto  it. — The  use  of  the  present  tense  in  render- 
ing this  verse  (Ges.  Hitz.  Hdwk.)  is  inconsistent  with  the  phrase  nnnx? 
CPtn,  which  requires  the  future  proper  (Ew.  Hend.).  That  phrase,  accord- 
ing to  the  Rabbins,  always  means  the  days  of  the  Messiah ;  according  to 
Lightfoot,  the  end  of  the  old  dispensation.  In  itself  it  is  indefinite. — The 
sense  of  pj  here  is  not  prepared  (Vulg.)  but  fixed,  estabhshed,  rendered 
permanently  visible  (LXX.  'israi  lij.(pavii). — It  was  not  to  be  established  on 
the  top  of  the  mountains  (Vulg.  Vitr.  De  W.  Umbr.)  but  either  at  the  head 
(Hitz.  Ew.)  or  simply  high  among  the  mountains,  which  idea  is  expressed 
by  other  words  in  the  parallel  clause,  and  by  the  same  words  in  1  Kings 
xxi.  10,  12.  That  mount  Zion  should  be  taken  up  and  carried  by  the  other 
hills  (J.  D.  Mich.)  is  neither  the  literal  nor  figurative  meaning  of  the  Pro- 
phet's words. — The  verb  in  the  last  clause  is  always  used  to  signify  a  con- 
fluence of  nations. 

VOL.  I.  *  G 


98  ISAIAU  II.  [Vek.  3,  4. 

3.  This  confluence  of  nations  is  described  more  fulh',  and  its  motive 
stated  in  their  own  words,  namely,  a  desire  to  be  instructed  in  the  true 
religion,  of  which  Jeri^salem  or  Zion,  under  the  old  dispensation,  was  the 
sole  depository.  And  many  nations  shall  go  (set  out,  put  themselves  in 
motion)  and  shall  say  (to  one  another),  Go  ye  (as  a  formula  of  exhortation, 
where  the  English  idiom  requires  come),  and  ue  iiill  ascend  (or  let  us  ascend, 
for  which  the  Hebrew  has  no  other  form)  to  the  nwiottain  of  Jehovah  (where 
his  house  is,  where  he  dwells),  to  the  honse  of  the  God  of  Jacob,  and  lie  uill 
teach  us  of  his  tcays  (the  ways  in  which  he  requires  us  to  walk),  and  iic  uill 
go  in  his  paths  (a  synonymous  expression).  For  out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth 
laic  (the  true  religion,  as  a  rule  of  duty),  and  the  word  of  Jehovah  (the  true 
religion,  as  a  revelation) /ro?/t  Jerusalem.  These  last  words  may  be  either 
the  words  of  the  Gentiles,  telling  why  they  looked  to  Zion  as  a  soui'ce  of 
saving  knowledge,  or  the  words  of  the  Prophet,  telling  why  the  truth  may 
be  thus  diffused,  namely,  because  it  had  been  given  to  the  church  for  this 
very  purpose.  Cyril's  idea  that  the  clause  relates  to  the  taking  away  of 
God's  word  from  the  Jewish  church  {■/.araXsXoi'Trs  rr^v  2/w^)  is  wholly  incon- 
sistent with  the  context. — Compare  John  iv.  22  ;  Luke  xxiv.  47. — The 
common  version  many  people  convej'S  to  a  modern  ear  the  wrong  sense  of 
many  persons,  and  was  only  used  for  want  of  such  a  plural  form  as  peopled, 
which,  though  employed  by  Lowth  and  others,  has  never  become  current, 
and  was  certainly  not  so  when  the  Bible  was  translated,  as  appears  from 
the  circumlocution  used  instead  of  it  in  Gen.  xxv.  23.  The  plural  form  is 
here  essential  to  the  meaning. — Go  is  not  here  used  as  the  opposite  of  coine, 
but  as  denoting  active  motion  (Vitrin.  movebunt  se  ;  J.  D.  Mich,  werden 
sich  aufmachen). — The  word  ascend  is  not  used  in  reference  to  an  alleged 
Jewish  notion  that  the  Holy  Land  was  physically  higher  than  all  other 
countries,  nor  simply  to  the  natural  site  of  Jerusalem,  nor  even  to  its  moral 
elevation  as  the  seat  of  the  true  rehgion,  but  to  the  new  elevation  and  con- 
spicuous position  just  ascribed  to  it. — The  subjunctive  construction  that  he 
may  teach  (Luth.  Yitr.  Ges.  Ew.  &c.)  is  rather  paraphrastical  andexegetical 
than  simply  expressive  of  the  sense  of  the  original,  which  implies  hope  as 
well  as  purpose. — The  preposition  of  before  icnys  is  not  to  be  omitted  as  a 
mere  connective,  "  teach  us  his  ways"  (Ges.  Hend.  Um.)  ;  nor  taken  in  a 
local  sense,  "  out  of  his  ways"  (Ivnobel) ;  but  either  partitively,  "  some  of 
his  ways"  (Vitr.),  or  as  denoting  the  subject  of  instruction,  "  concerning 
his  ways,"  which  is  the  usual  explanation. — The  substitution  of  doctrine  or 
instruction  for  law  (J.  D.  Mich.  Hitz.  Hendew.  De  W.  Ew.)  is  contrary  to 
usage,  and  weakens  the  expression. 

4.  He  who  appeared  in  the  preceding  verses  as  the  lawgiver  and  teacher 
of  the  nations,  is  now  represented  as  an  arbiter  or  umpire,  ending  their  dis- 
putes by  a  pacific  intervention,  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  which  war 
ceases,  the  very  knowledge  of  the  art  is  lost,  and  its  implements  applied  to 
other  uses.  This  prediction  was  not  fulfilled  in  the  general  peace  under 
Augustus,  which  was  only  temporary ;  nor  is  it  now  fulfilled.  The  event 
is  suspended  on  a  previous  condition,  viz.,  the  confluence  of  the  nations  to 
the  chm'ch,  which  has  not  yet  taken  place ;  a  strong  inducement  to  difl'nse 
the  gospel,  which,  in  the  mean  time,  is  peaceful  in  its  spirit,  tendency,  and 
actual  eflect,  wherever  and  so  far  as  it  exerts  its  influence  without  obstruc- 
tiorr.  And  he  shall  judge  (or  arbitrate)  between  the  nations,  and  decide  for 
(or  respecting)  many  peoples.  And  they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  plough- 
shares, and  their  spears  into  pruiring-hoolcs.  Nation  shall  not  lift  vp  sword 
against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  mora.     To  the  figm'c  in  the 


Ver.  5,  6.]  ISAIAH  11.  99 

last  clause  Lowth  quotes  a  beautiful  parallel  in  Martial's  epigram  entitled 
Falx  ex  ense  : 

Pax  me  cei'ta  ducis  placidos  curavit  in  usus ; 

Agricolae  nunc  sum,  militis  ante  fiii. 

The  image  here  represented  is  reversed  by  Joel  (iii.  10),  and  by  Yirgil  and 
Ovid  (^En.  vii.  635,  Georg.  i.  506,  Ov.  Fast.  i.  697).— The  question 
whether  D^FIX  means  ploughshares  (Yulg.  Lu.  Low.),  coulters  (Rosen.  Hn. 
Kn.)  spades  (Dutch  Vs.),  hoes  or  mattocks  (Ges.  Hitz.  Ew.  Um.),  is  of  no 
exegetical  importance,  as  the  whole  idea  meant  to  be  expressed  is  the  con- 
version of  martial  weapons  into  implements  of  husbandry.  Hook  in  old 
English,  is  a  crooked  knife,  such  as  a  sickle,  which  is  not  however  here 
meant  (LXX.  Vulg.  Lu.),  but  knife  for  pruning  vines. — Not  learning  uar 
is  something  more  than  not  continuing  to  practise  it  (Calv.),  and  signities 
their  ceasing  to  know  how  to  practise  it.  To  judge  is  here  not  to  rule 
(Calv.  Vitr.),  which  is  too  vague,  nor  to  punish  (Gocc),  which  is  too  specific, 
but  to  arhitrate  or  act  as  umpire  (Cler.  Ges,  &c.),  as  appears  from  the  effect 
described,  and  also  from  the  use  of  the  preposition  ^5  meaning  not  merely 
among,  with  reference  to  the  sphere  of  jurisdiction,  but  between,  with  refer- 
ence to  contending  parties.  The  parallel  verb  does  not  here  mean  to  rebuke 
(Jan.  Eng.  Vs.)  nor  to  convince  of  the  truth  in  general  (Calv.  Coec.  Vitr.) 
or  of  the  evil  of  war  in  particular  (Hendew.),  but  is  used  as  a  poetical  equi- 
valent to  t2?^,  which  is  used  in  this  sense  with  the  same  preposition,  Exek. 
xxxiv.  17. — On  the  use  of  the  present  tense  in  rendering  this  verse  (Ges. 
De  W.  Ew.)  vide  supra  ad  v.  2. 

5.  From  this  distant  prospect  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  the  Prophet 
now  reverts  to  his  own  times  and  countr3'men,  and  calls  upon  them  not  to 
be  behind  the  nations  in  the  use  of  their  distinguished  advantages.  If  even 
the  heathen  were  one  day  to  be  enlightened,  surely  they  who  were  aheady 
in  possession  of  the  light  ought  to  make  use  of  it.  0  house  of  Jacob  (family 
of  Israel,  the  church  or  chosen  people)  come  ye  (literally,  go  ye,  as  in  ver.  3), 
and  ice  ivill  go  (or  let  us  walk,  including  himself  in  the  exhortation)  in  the 
light  of  Jehovah  (in  the  path  of  truth  and  duty  upon  which  the  light  of 
revelation  shines).  To  regard  these  as  the  words  of  the  Jews  themselves 
(Targ.  "  they  of  the  house  of  Jacob  shall  say,"  &c.),  or  of  the  Gentiles  to 
the  Jews  (Jarchi),  or  to  another  (Sanctius),  is  forced  and  arbitrary  in  a 
high  degree.  The  light  is  mentioned,  not  in  allusion  to  the  illumination 
of  the  court  of  the  women  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles  (Deyling.  Obs.  Sacr. 
ii.  p.  221),  but  as  a  common  designation  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  Christ 
himself.  Prov.  vi.  23 ;  Ps.  cxix.  105  ;  Isa.  li.  4  ;  Acts  xxvi.  23  ;  2  Cor. 
iv.  4. 

6.  The  exhortation  in  ver.  5  implied  that  the  Jews  were  not  actually 
walking  in  God's  light,  but  were  alienated  from  him,  a  fact  which  is  now 
explicitly  asserted  and  the  reason  of  it  given,  viz.,  illicit  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations,  as  evinced  by  the  adoption  of  their  superstitious  practices, 
reliance  on  their  martial  and  pecuniary  aid,  and  last  but  worst  of  all,  the 
worship  of  their  idols.  In  this  verse,  the  first  of  these  effects  is  ascribed 
to  intercourse  with  those  eastern  countries,  which  are  always  represented 
by  the  ^icients  as  the  cradle  of  the  occult  arts  and  sciences.  As  if  he  had 
said,  I  thus  exhort,  0  Lord,  tby  chosen  people,  because  thou  hast  forsaken 
thy  people  the  house  of  Jacob,  because  they  are  replenished  from  the  east  and 
(full  of)  soothsayers  like  the  Philistines,  and  with  the  children  of  strangers 
they  abound. — The  various  renderings  of  ''3  by  therefore  (Eng.  Vs.)  verily 
(Low.),  surely  (Renders.),  hut  (Hendew.  Ew.),  &c.,  all  arise  from  miscon- 


100  ISAIAH  11.  [Ver,  7. 

ception  or  neglect  of  the  connection,  which  requires  the  common  meaning 
for,  because  (Sept.  Vulg.  Gcs.  Hitz,  Umb.  Barnes).  Abarbcuel  supposes 
the  words  to  be  addressed  to  the  ten  tribes,  "  Thou,  0  house  of  Jacob,  hast 
forsaken  thy  people,"  Judah.  Others  suppose  them  to  be  addi'esscd  to 
Judah,  but  in  this  sense,  "  Thou,  0  house  of  Jacob,  hast  forsaken  thy 
nation,"  i.  e.  thy  national  honour,  religion,  and  allegiance  (Saad.  J.  D. 
Mich.  Hitz.).  The  last  is  a  forced  construction,  and  the  other  is  at  vari- 
ance with  the  context,  while  both  are  inconsistent  with  the  usage  of  the 
verb,  which  is  constantly  used  to  denote  God's  alienation  from  his  people 
and  especially  his  giving  them  up  to  their  enemies  (Judges  vi.  13 ;  2  Kings 
xxi.  14;  Jer.  vii.  29;  xxiii.  33). — Filled  cannot  mean  inspired  as  in  Micah 
iii.  8  (Vitr.),  for  even  there  the  idea  is  suggested  by  the  context. — J.  D. 
Michaelis  thinks  D!7i^  here  sj-nonymous  with  Dni?  the  east  wind,  "  full  of 
the  east  wind,"  i.e.  of  delusion  ^^Job  xv.  2),  which  is  wholly  arbitrary. 
All  the  ancient  versions  supply  as  before  this  word,  and  two  of  them 
explain  the  phrase  to  mean  as  nf  old  (Sept.  ug  ro  drr  a^yjni,  Vulg.  sicut 
olim).  But  all  modern  writers  give  it  the  local  sense  of  east,  applied  some- 
what indefinitely  to  the  countries  east  of  Palestine,  especially  those 
watered  by  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates.  Some  read  they  are  full  of  the  east, 
i.e.  of  its  people  or  its  superstitions  (Calv.  Ges.  Rosen.  Hitz.  De  W. 
Hn.  Um.) ;  others  tiwre  than  the  east  (Luth.  Dutch  Vs.) ;  but  the  true  sense 
is  no  doubt /?-ow  the  east  (Cler.  ex  oriente  ;  Ewald,  vom  Morgenlande  her), 
denoting  not  mere  influence  or  imitation,  but  an  actual  influx  of  diviners 
from  that  quarter. — Whether  the  root  of  CJ^V  be  TV  an  eye  (Vitr.),  \}V  a 
cloud  (Rosen.),  or  pj?  to  cover  (Ges.),  it  clearly  denotes  the  practitioners 
of  occult  arts.  Henderson  treats  it  as  a  finite  verb  (they  practise  magic) ; 
the  English  Version  supplies  are ;  but  the  construction  which  connects  it 
with  the  verb  of  the  preceding  clause,  so  that  the  first  says  whence  they  are 
filled,  and  then  ivhereicith,  agi'ees  best  with  the  mention  of  repletion  or 
abundance  both  before  and  after.  The  Philistines  are  here  mentioned 
rather  by  way  of  comparison  than  as  an  actual  source  of  the  corruption. 
That  the  Jews  were  familiar  with  their  suj^erstitions  may  be  learned  from 
1  Sam.  vi.  2 ;  2  Kings  i.  2. — The  last  verb  does  not  mean  they  clap  their 
hands  in  applause,  derision,  or  joy  (Calv.  Vitr.  Eng.  Vs. — they  please  them- 
selves), nor  they  strike  hands  in  agreement  or  alhance  (Ges.  Ros.  De  W. 
Hg.  Haver.  Hn.  Um.),  but  they  abound,  as  in  Syriac,  and  in  1  Kings  xx.  10 
(J.  H.  Mich.  Cler.  Eng.  Vers.  marg.  Ewald).  The  causative  sense  mul- 
tiply (Lowth)  does  not  suit  the  paralleHsm  so  exactly.  The  Septuagint 
and  Targum  apply  the  cause  to  alliance  by  marriage  with  the  heathen. — 
By  children  of  strangers  we  are  not  to  understand  the  fruits,  i.e.  doctrines 
and  practices  of  strangers  (Vitr.),  nor  is  it  merely  an  expression  of  con- 
tempt, as  Lowth  and  Gesenius  seem  to  intimate  by  rendering  it  stiange  or 
spurious  brood.  It  rather  means  strangers  themselves,  not  strange  gods  or 
their  chilcben,  i.e.  worshippers  (J.,.D.  Mich.),  but  foreigners  considered 
as  descendants  of  a  strange  stock,  and  therefore  as  aliens  from  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel. — The  conjectural  emendations  of  the  text  by  reading 
DDp  for  Qtp  (Brent.),  n^3  for  n^'2  (Hitz.),  and  H^  ntJ'Di  for  nn:;'i:3  (Houbi- 
gant),  are  wholly  unnecessary. — For  the  form  nriK^'DJ,  see  Ges.  Seb.  Gr. 
§  44,  2,  2. 

7.  The  second  proof  of  undue  intercourse  with  heathen  nations,  which 
the  Prophet  mentions,  is  the  influx  of  fi)reign  money,  and  of  foreign  troops, 
with  which  he  represents  the  laud  as  filled.  And  his  land  (referring  to  the 
singular  noun  people  in  ver.  6)  is  filled  uith  silver  and  gold,  and  there  is  no 


Yer.  8,  9.]  ISAIAH  II.  101 

end  to  his  treasures ;  and  his  land  is  filled  with  horses,  and  there  is  no  end  to 
Jiis  chariots. — The  common  interpretatien  makes  this  verse  descriptive  of 
domestic  wealth  and  luxury.  But  these  would  hardly  have  been  placed 
between  the  superstitions  and  the  idols,  with  which  Judah  had  been  flooded 
from  abroad.  Besides,  this  interpretation  fails  to  account  for  gold  and 
silver  being  here  combined  with  horses  and  chariots.  Hitzig  supposes  the 
latter  to  be  mentioned  only  as  articles  of  luxury ;  but  as  such  they  are 
never  mentioned  elsewhere,  not  even  in  the  case  of  Absalom  and  Naaman 
to  which  he  appeals,  both  of  whom  were  military  chiefs  as  well  as  nobles. 
Even  the  chariots  of  the  peaceful  Solomon  were  probably  designed  for  mar- 
tial show.  The  horses  and  chariots  of  the  Old  Testament  are  horses  and 
chariots  of  war.  The  common  riding  adimals  were  mules  and  asses,  the 
latter  of  which,  as  contrasted  with  the  horse,  are  emblematic  of  peace 
(Zech.  ix.  9  ;  Math.  xxi.  7).  But  on  the  supposition  that  the  verse  has 
reference  to  undue  dependence  upon  foreign  powers,  the  money  and  the 
armies  of  the  latter  would  be  naturally  named  together.  Thus  understood, 
this  verse  affords  no  proof  that  the  prophecy  belongs  to  the  prosperous 
reign  of  Uzziah  or  Jotham,  since  it  merely  represents  the  land  as  flooded 
with  foreign  gold  and  foreign  troops,  a  description  rather  applicable  to  the 
reign  of  Ahaz.  The  form  of  expression,  too,  suggests  the  idea  of  a  recent 
acquisition,  as  the  strict  sense  of  the  verb  is  not  it  is  full  (E.  V.  Ges.  Hn.), 
nor  even  it  is  filled,  but  it  rcas  or  has  heen  filled  (LXX.  Vulg.  Hg.  Ew.  Kn.). 
— There  is  no  need  of  explaining  the  words  no  end  as  expressing  an  in- 
satiable desire  (Calv.),  or  as  the  boastful  language  of  the  people  (Vitr.), 
since  the  natural  hyperbole  employed  by  the  Prophet  is  one  by  which  no 
reader  can  be  puzzled  or  deceived.  The  intimate  connection  of  this  verse 
with  that  before  it  is  disturbed  by  omitting  and  at  the  beginning  (Ges.  Hg. 
Um.),  nor  is  there  any  need  of  rendering  it  also  (E.  V.),  yea  (Hn.),  or  .so 
that  (Hk.  Ew.),  either  here  or  in  the  middle  of  the  sentence. 

8.  The  third  and  greatest  evil  flowing  from  this  intercourse  with  foreign 
nations  was  idolatry  itself,  which  was  usually  introduced  under  the  cloak 
of  mere  political  alliances  (see  e.rj.  2  Kings  xvi.  10).  Here  as  elsewhere 
the  terms  used  to  describe  it  are  contemptuous  in  a  high  degree.  And  his 
land  is  filled  with  idols  (properly  nonentities,  '  gods  which  yet  are  no  gods,' 
Jer.  ii.  11;  'for  we  know  that  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world,'  1  Cor. 
viii.  4),  to  the  loorJc  of  their  hands  they  how  down,  to  that  xohich  their  fingers 
have  made,  one  of  the  great  absurdities  charged  by  the  prophets  on  idola- 
ters, "  as  if  that  could  be  a  god  to  them  which  was  not  only  a  creature  but 
their  own  creature"  (Matthew  Henry). — For  idols  the  Septuagint  has  abo- 
minations {iSb'.Xvyfidruv),  but  the  true  sense  of  the  Hebrew  tei-m  is  that 
expressed  by  Clericus,  diis  nihili. — For  their  hands,  their  fingers,  the 
Hebrew  has  his  hands,  his  fingers,  an  enallage  which  does  not  obscure  the 
sense,  and  is  retained  in  the  last  clause  by  Cocceius  and  Clericus  (digiti 
ipsius).  Vitringa  has  digiti  cujusque.  J.  D.  Michaelis  makes  the  verb 
singular  (jedet  betet).     Barnes  has  his  hands,  but  their  fingers. 

9.  Here  the  Prophet  passes  from  the  sin  to  its  punishment,  or  rather 
simultaneously  alludes  to  both,  the  verb  in  the  first  clause  being  naturally 
appHcable  as  well  to  voluntary  humiliation  in  sin  as  to  compulsory  humiUa- 
tion  in  punishment,  while  the  verb  in  the  last  clause  would  suggest  of  course 
to  a  Jewish  reader  the  twofold  idea  of  pardoning  and  lifting  up.  They  who 
bowed  themselves  to  idols  should  be  bowed  down  by  the  mighty  hand  of 
God,  instead  of  being  raised  up  from  their  wilful  self-abasement  by  the  par- 
don of  their  sins.     The  relative  features  denote  not  only  succession  in  time 


102  ISAIAH  II.  [Ver.  10,  11. 

but  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect.  And  so  (by  this  means,  for  this  reason) 
the  mean  man  (not  in  the  modern  but  the  old  sense  of  inferior,  low  in  rank) 
is  bowed  dotvn,  and  tlie  great  man  is  broiiffht  low,  and  do  not  thou  (0  Lord) 
forffive  them.  This  prayer,  for  such  it  is,  may  be  understood  as  expressing, 
not  so  much  the  Prophet's  own  desire,  as  the  certainty  of  the  event,  arising 
from  the  righteousness  of  God.  There  is  no  need  therefore  of  departing 
from  the  uniform  usage  of  the  future  with  ^i<  as  a  negative  imperative,  by 
rendering  it  thou  dost  not  (Gcs.  Hg.),  wilt  not  (Lu.  Yitr.  Low.  Hn.),  canst 
not  (J.  D.  Mich.  De  W.  Hk.)  or  mayest  not  fonjivc  (Um.  Kn.)  The  strict 
translation  is  as  old  as  the  Yulgnte  (ne  demittas)  and  as  late  as  Ewald 
(vergib  ihnen  nicht). — "Whether  ^''^  and  D^^*,  as  is  commonly  supposed, 
denote  a  difference  in  rank  or  estimation,  like  the  Greek  arr,^  and  av«)pwTo?, 
the  Latin  rir  and  homo,  and  the  German  Mann  and  MenscJi,  when  in  anti- 
thesis, is  a  question  of  no  moment,  because  even  if  they  are  synonymous, 
denoting  simply  >»«>(  and  man,  this  man  and  that  man,  one  man  and  another 
(Hg.  Hk.  Kn.),  their  combination  here  must  be  intended  to  describe  men 
of  all  sorts,  or  men  in  general. — On  the  relative  futures,  see  Ges.  Heb.  Gr. 
§  152,  4,  c.     On  the  construction  with  ?N,  Nordhcimer,  §§  990,  1065. 

10.  Instead  of  simply  predicting  that  their  sinful  course  should  be  inter- 
rupted hx  a  terrible  manifestation  of  God's  presence,  the  Prophet  views  him 
as  already  come  or  near  at  hand,  and  addressing  the  people  as  an  indivi- 
dual, or  singling  out  one  of  their  number,  exhorts  him  to  take  refuge  under 
ground  or  in  the  rocks,  an  advice  peculiarly  significant  in  Palestine,  a 
country  full  of  caves,  often  used,  if  not  originally  made,  for  this  very  pur- 
pose (1  Sam.  xiii.  6,  xiv.  11  ;  Judges  vi.  2.)  Go  into  the  rock  and  hide 
thee  in  the  dust,  from  before  the  terror  of  J  eh  or  ah  and  from  the  f/lonj  of  his 
majesty.  The  nouns  in  the  last  clause  differ,  according  to  their  derivation, 
very  much  as  suhUrnity  and  beauty  do  in  English,  and  express  in  combina- 
tion the  idea  of  sublime  beauty  or  beautiful  sublimity.  The  tone  of  this 
address  is  not  sarcastic  (Glassius)  but  terrific.  By  the  terror  of  Jehovah 
seems  to  be  intended,  not  the  feeling  of  fear  which  he  inspires  (E.  V.  for 
fear  of  the  Lord),  but  some  terrible  manifestation  of  his  presence.  The 
preposition,  therefore,  should  not  be  taken  in  the  vague  sense  of  for,  on 
account  of  (Jun.  Cocc.  E.  V.  Vitr.),  but  in  its  proper  local  sense  of  from 
(Lowth,  Hn.),  before  [3.  D.  Mich.  Gcs.  Hk.  Ew.  Um.),  or  from  before. — 
The  force  and  beauty  of  the  passage  are  impaired  by  converting  the  im- 
perative into  a  future  (Targ.),  or  the  singular  imperative  into  a  plural 
(Sept.  Pesh.  Hg.). — Lowth,  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint,  Arabic,  and 
a  single  manuscript,  supplies  the  words  u'lten  he  riscth  to  strike  the  earth 
with  terror,  from  the  last  clause  of  the  nineteenth  and  twenty-first  verses. 

11.  As  the  Prophet,  in  the  preceding  verse,  views  the  terror  of  Jehovah 
as  approaching,  so  here  he  views  it  as  ah'cady  past,  and  describes  the  eflect 
which  it  has  wrought.  The  eyes  of  the  loftiness  of  man  {i.  e.  his  haughty 
looks)  are  cast  down,  and  the  heiyht  (or  pride)  of  men  is  brouyht  low,  and 
Jehovah  alone  is  exalted  in  that  day,  not  only  in  fact,  but  in  the  estimation 
of  his  creatures,  as  the  passive  form  here  used  mav  intimate. — Man  and 
men,  the  same  words  that  occur  in  ver.  9,  are  variously  rendered  here  by 
repeating  the  same  noun  (Sept.  Pesh.  Lu.  Calv.  Vitr.  Hn.)  by  using  two 
equivalents  (Lowth,  inen  and  mortals  ;  Ewald,  men  and  people)  or  by  an 
antithesis  (Vulg.  hominis,  virorum). — The  verb  in  the  first  clause  agrees  in 
form  with  the  nearest  antecedent,  or  the  whole  phrase  may  be  regarded  as 
the  subject  (Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  145,  1),  as  in  Ewald's  version  of  it  by  a  triple 
compound  (Hochmuthsaugen). 


Vek.  12-14.J  ISAIAH  II.  103 

12.  The  general  threatening  of  humiliation  is  now  applied  specifically  to 
a  variety  of  lofty  objects  in  which  the  people  might  be  supposed  to  dehght 
and  trust,  vers.  12-16.  This  enumeration  is  connected  with  what  goes  before, 
by  an  explanation  of  the  phrases  used  at  the  close  of  the  eleventh  verse.  I 
say  that  da}^  for  there  is  a  day  to  Jehovah  of  Hosts  (/.  e.  an  appointed 
time  for  the  manifestation  of  his  power)  jqwn  (or  against)  every  thing  high 
and  lofty,  and  upon  every  thing  exalted,  and  it  comes  (or  shall  come)  down. 
— The  common  construction,  for  the  day  of  Jehovah  is  or  shall  be  (Sept. 
Vnlg.  Calv.  E.  V.  Vitr.  Lowth,  Bar.),  does  not  account  for  the  use  of  the 
conjunction  or  the  pi-eposition,  the  former  of  which  refers  to  the  last  words 
of  the  verse  preceding,  and  the  latter  denotes  the  relation  of  possession  : 
there  is  a  day  to  Jehovah,  i.  e.  he  has  a  day  (Ewald),  has  it  appointed 
(Coco.  Jun.  J.  D.  Mich.),  has  it  in  reserve,  or  less  exactly,  holds  a  day 
(Hitzig)  or  holds  a  judgment-day  (Gesenius). — The  specific  sense  of  -'J? 
against  (Jun.  Cler.  Vitr.  Low.  Bar.  Hen.),  may  be  considered  as  included 
in  the  wider  one  of  on. — The  version  every  one  (Sept.  Jun.  E.  V.)  restricts 
the  phrase  too  much  to  persons,  which  is  only  a  part  of  the  idea  conveyed 
by  the  expression  every  thing  (Lu.  Cocc.  Vitr.  J.  D.  Mich.  Ges.  &c.)  To 
refer  one  clause  to  persons  and  the  other  to  things  (Calv.  Barn.)  is  wholly 
arbitraiy. — The  same  objection  may  be  made  to  the  common  version  of 
nN;5  by  proud,  instead  of  its  primary  and  comprehensive  sense  of  high 
(Ewald.  Gesen.  in  Lex.). — The  translation  of  ???'  as  an  adjective,  implying 
that  the  day  of  Jehovah  was  against  high  and  loiv  (Calv.  in  Comm.  Cocc. 
J.  T>.  Mich.),  is  inconsistent  with  the  usage  of  the  word,  and  not  so  well 
suited  to  the  parallel  clause,  in  which  lofty  things  alone  are  threatened 
with  humiliation, 

13.  To  convey  the  idea  of  lofty  and  imposing  objects,  the  Prophet  makes 
use,  not  of  S}TQbols,  but  of  specimens,  selected  from  among  the  things  of 
this  class  most  familiar  to  his  readers,  beginning  with  the  two  noblest  species 
of  forest  trees.  And  on  all  the  cedars  of  Lebanon  (or  the  White  Mountain, 
the  chain  dividing  Palestine  from  Syria),  that  are  high  and  lofty,  and  on  all 
the  oaks  of  Bashan  (now  called  El  Bethenyeh,  a  mountainous  district,  east 
of  Jordan,  famous  of  old  for  its  pastures  and  oak-forests). — Cedars  and 
oaks  are  supposed  by  some  to  be  here  named,  as  emblems  of  great  men  in 
general  (Targ.  Jerome,  Vitr.  Low.  Ges.),  or  of  the  great  men  of  Syria  and 
Israel  distinctively  (Grotius)  ;  but  this  is  not  in  keeping  with  the  subse- 
quent context,  in  which  some  things  are  mentioned,  which  cannot  be  under- 
stood as  emblems,  but  only  as  samples  of  their  several  classes.  The  appli- 
cation of  the  terms  to  the  oak  and  cedar  wood  used  in  the  buildings  erected 
by  Uzziah  and  Jotham,  (Knobel)  is  equally  at  variance  with  the  context 
and  good  taste.  That  they  do  not  refer  to  the  actual  prostration  of  the 
forests  of  Palestine  or  the  neighbouring  countries  by  a  tempest  (Ros.  Ew.), 
may  be  inferred  from  the  impossibility  of  so  explaining  all  the  analogous 
expressions  which  follow. — On  the  trees  and  places  mentioned  in  this  verse, 
see  Robinson's  Palestine,  vol.  iii.  p.  440,  and  Appendix,  p.  158. 

14.  The  mention  of  Lebanon  and  Bashan  in  ver.  13  now  leads  to  that 
of  mountains  in  general,  as  lofty  objects  in  themselves,  and  therefore  help- 
ing to  complete  the  general  conception  of  high  things,  which  the  Prophet 
threatens  with  humiliation.  And  upon  all  the  high  mountains,  and  upon 
all  the  elevated  hills. — For  reasons  given  under  the  preceding  verse,  this 
cannot  be  regarded  as  a  threatening  against  states  and  governments  (Lowth), 
or  against  the  mountaineers  of  Palestine  (fficolampadius,  Musculus),  or 
against  the  fortresses  erected  by  Jotham  in  the  highlands  of  Judah  (Kno- 


104  ISAIAH  II.  [Ver.  15-16. 

bel),  or  against  the  fastnesses  to  which  they  had  recourse  in  times  of  danger 
(Barnes),  but  must  be  explained  as  an  additional  specification  of  the  general 
statement  in  ver.  12,  that  every  h'ujh  thin(j  should  be  humbled. 

15.  To  trees  and  hills  he  now  adds  walls  and  towers,  as  a  third  class 
of  objects  with  which  the  ideas  of  loftiness  and  strength  are  commonly 
associated.  And  upon  every  Iwjh  iouer  and  upon  every  fenced  uall, 
literally  cut  of,  i.  e.  rendered  inaccessible  by  being  fortified. — Lowth  and 
others  suppose  these  to  be  named  as  symbols  of  military  strength,  while 
Kjiobel  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  fortifications  built  by  Joiham  and 
Uzziah,  and  Hitzig  assumes  a  transition  just  at  this  point  from  em- 
blematical to  literal  expressions ;  all  which  is  more  or  less  at  variance  with 
the  context. 

16.  The  Prophet  now  concludes  his  catalogue  of  lofty  and  conspicuous 
objects  by  adding,  first,  as  a  specific  item,  maritime  vessels  of  the  largest 
class,  and  then  a.  general  expression,  summing  up  the  whole  in  one  de- 
scriptive phrase,  as  things  attractive  and  imposing  to  the  eye.  And  upoti 
all  shipis  of  Tarshish  (such  as  were  built  to  navigate  the  whole  length  of 
the  Mediterranean  sea),  and  upon  cdl  images  {i.  e.  visible  objects)  of  desire, 
or  rather  admiration  and  delight. — It  is  a  very  old  opinion  that  Tarshish 
means  the  sea,  and  ships  of  Tarshish  seafaring  vessels  (Sept.  -zXoiov  ^a- 
Xdaaris;  Luther,  Schifl'e  im  Meer ;  Cocceius,  naves  oceani)  as  distinguished 
from  mere  coast  or  river  craft  (Piscator).  From  the  earliest  times,  however, 
it  has  also  been  explained  as  the  name  of  a  place,  either  Tarsus  in  Cilicia 
(Josephus.  Targ.  on  Chron.)  or  Cilicia  itself  (Hartmann),  or  Carthage  (Kae- 
X^^^v  Sept.  alibi),  or  a  port  in  Ethiopia  (Hensler),  or  Africa  in  general 
(Np^lDN  Targ.  on  Jer.  and  Kings),  or  a  port  in  India  (Jerome  on  Jer.  x.  9. 
Arabic  Vs.  1  King  s  chap,  x.),  or  which  is  now  the  common  opinion,  I'artessns 
a  Phenician  settlement  in  the  south-west  of  Spain,  between  the  mouihs  of 
the  Baetis  or  Guadalquivir,  sometimes  put  for  the  extreme  west  (Ps.  Ixxii. 
10).  As  the  principal  maritime  trade,  with  which  the  Hebrews  were 
acquainted,  was  to  this  region,  ships  of  Tarshish  would  suggest  the  idea 
of  the  largest  class  of  vessels,  justly  included  in  this  catalogue  of  lofty  and 
imposing  objects.  To  suppose  a  direct  allusion  either  to  commercial  wealth 
or  naval  strength  (Lowth)  is  inconsistent  with  the  context,  although 
these  ideas  would  of  course  be  suggested  by  association.  Most  writers 
understand  the  last  clause,  like  the  first,  as  a  specific  addition  to  the  fore- 
going catalogue,  denoting  some  particular  object  or  class  of  objects,  such 
as  pictures  (E.  V.  Gill's  '  pictures  of  Christ  and  the  Virgin  Mary,  of  angels, 
saints,  &c.'),  statues  (J.  H.  Mich.  Doderleiu.  Ros.),  lofty  images  or  obelisks 
(Ewald),  palaces  (Targ.  Jon.),  tapestry  (Calv.),  ships  (Sept.  'zaaav  ^'sav 
<!tXoiuv  y.d'/.Xovg.  Henderson,  '  all  the  vessels  of  delightful  appearance'),  or 
their  decorated  sterns,  '  picta;  carina,'  (Vitr.  J.  D,  Mich.  Hg.),  or  their 
gay  flags  and  streamers  (Gesenius  in  Thesauro).  But  this  indefinite  diversity 
of  explanation,  as  well  as  the  general  form  of  the  expression,  makes  it  pro- 
bable that  this  clause,  notwithstanding  the  parallelism,  was  intended  as  a 
general  expression  for  such  lofty  and  imposing  objects  as  had  just  been 
enumerated, — '  cedars,  oaks,  mountains,  hills,  towers,  walls,  ships,  and  in 
short,  all  attractive  and  majestic  objects '  (Vulg.  omne  quod  visu  pulchrum 
est.  Ges.  ad  loc.  De  W.  Ilk.  Um.  Bar.).  Even  Lowth's  translation,  every 
lovely  v:orlc  of  art,  is,  on  this  hypothesis,  too  much  restricted.  The  inUr- 
pretation  which  has  now  been  given  is  confii'med  by  the  use  of  the  analo;;uu3 
prosaic  phrase  "^^PD  Y?,  to  close  and  sum  up  an  enumeration  of  particulars. 
Knobel,  to  whom  \tt  are  indebted  for  this  illustration,  cites  as  examples 


Veb.  17-19.]  ISAIAH  11.  105 

2  Cbron.  xxxii.  27,  xxsvi.  10,  Nah.  ii.  10. — For  an  argument  in  favour 
of  regarding  Tarshish  as  the  name  of  Cartilage,  see  Murray's  Encyclopa3dia 
of  Geography,  Book  I,  chap.  i.  §  iv.  According  to  Abulfeda,  the  Arabic 
geographer,  Tunis  was  anciently  called  Tarsis. 

17.  This  verse,  by  repeating  the  terms  of  ver.  11,  brings  us  back  from 
details  to  the  general  proposition  which  they  were  designed  to  illustrate  and 
enforce,  and  at  the  same  time  has  the  eflect  of  a  strophical  arrangement,  in 
which  the  same  burden  or  chorus  recurs  at  stated  intervals.  And  (thus,  by 
this  means,  or  in  this  way)  shall  the  loftiness  of  man  be  cast  douii,  and 
the  pride  of  men  he  brow/lit  low,  and  Jehovah  alone  exalted  in  that  day. 
Or,  retaining  the  form  of  the  first  two  verbs,  which  are  not  passive  but 
neuter,  and  exchanging  the  future  for  the  present,  the  sentence  may  be  thus 
translated.  So  sinks  the  loftiness  of  man  and  hoics  the  pride  of  men,  and 
Jehovah  alone  is  exalted  in  that  day.  For  the  syntax  of  the  first  clause, 
vide  supra  ad  ver.  11.     Cf.  Ewald's  Heb.  Gr.  §  567.     Gesenius,  §  144. 

18.  To  the  humiliation  of  all  lofty  things  the  Prophet  now  adds  the 
entire  disappearance  of  their  idols.  And  the  idols  (as  for  the  idols)  the 
ivhole  shall  pass  away.  The  construction  he  shall  utterly  abolish  or  cause 
to  disappear  (Calv.  E.  V.  Bar.)  is  at  variance  with  the  usage  of  the  verb 
as  an  intransitive.  To  make  it  agree  v/ith  the  plural  noun,  the  idols  shall 
utterly  pass  away  (E,  Y.  marg.  Low.  Be  W.  Hk.  Hn.),  or  the  verb  itself 
impersonal,  it  is  past,  gone,  or  all  over  with  the  idols  (Aug.  Ges.  Um.),  are 
unusual  and  harsh  constructions.  It  is  best  to  take  7y3  not  as  an  adverb 
but  a  noun  meaning  the  whole,  and  agreeing  regularly  with  the  verb  (Ros. 
Maur.  Hg.  Ew.).  The  omission  of  the  article  or  suffix  (^vSH  or  D<y|)  may 
be  resolved  into  the  poetical  usage  of  employing  indefinite  for  definite  ex- 
pressions (Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  ii.  4) ;  but  Knobel  accounts  for  it  still  better  by 
suggesting  that  the  full  phrase  would  have  been  Dy^?^n  ?y?  (like  T'^n  ^''<'^. 
Judges  XX.  40),  but  the  second  noun  is  placed  absolutely  at  the  beginning 
of  the  sentence  for  the  sake  of  emphasis — "  the  idols,  the  whole  shall  pass 
away,"  instead  of  "  the  whole  of  the  idols  shall  pass  away." — The  brevity 
of  this  verse,  consisting  of  a  single  clause,  has  commonly  been  regarded  as 
highly  emphatic,  and,  as  Hitzig  thinks,  sarcastic.  But  Hendewerk  sup- 
poses what  was  once  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  to  have  been  accidentally 
transferred  to  that  before  it.  The  eighteenth  verse,  in  his  translation, 
stands  as  follows — "Jehovah  alone  is  exalted  in  that  day,  and  the  idols 
are  all  gone."  This  conjecture,  though  ingenious,  is  entii-ely  unsupported 
by  external  evidence,  and  certainly  not  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  ver.  11, 
where  the  same  three  members  are  combined  as  in  ver,  17. 

19.  This  verse  differs  from  the  tenth  only  by  substituting  a  direct  pre- 
diction for  a  warning  or  exhortation,  and  by  adding  the  design  of  God's 
terrible  appearance.  And  they  (the  idolaters,  or  men  indefinitely)  shall 
enter  into  the  caves  of  the  rocks  and  into  the  holes  of  the  earth,  from  before 
the  terror  of  Jehovah  and  the  glory  of  his  majesty  in  his  arising  (^i.e.  when  he 
arises)  to  terrify  the  earth.  The  first  word  rendered  earth  is  the  same  that 
was  translated  dust  in  ver.  10,  but  even  there  it  signifies  the  solid  surface 
rather  than  the  crumbling  particles  which  we  call  dust.  The  most  exact 
translation  would  perhaps  be  ground. — God  is  said  to  arise  when  he  ad- 
di-esses  himself  to  anything,  especially  after  a  season  of  apparent  inaclion. 
The  transitive  meaning  of  the  last  verb,  though  unusual,  is  here  required 
by  the  context,  and  is  perhaps  the  prim aiy  and  proper  one  (see  Gesen. 
Thes.  s.  v.). — The  paronomasia  in  f.^^n  Pi^7-  ^^^  ^^een  imitated  by  Calvin, 


106  ISAIAH  II.  [Ver.  20. 

not  in  his  version  but  his  notes  (ad  torram  terrendam),  and  by  Gesenius 
(wenn  er  sich  erhcht  und  die  Erde  beht). 

20.  This  is  an  anipUfication  of  ver.  18,  explaining  how  the  idols  were  to 
disappear,  viz.  by  being  thrown  away  in  haste,  terror,  shame,  and  desperate 
contempt,  by  those  who  had  worshipped  them  and  trusted  in  them,  as  a 
means  of  facilitating  their  escape  from  the  avenging  presence  of  Jehovah. 
In   that  dmi  shall  man  cast  his  idols  of  silver  and  Jiis  idols  nf  gold  (here 
named  as  the  most  splendid  and  expensive,  in  order  to  make  the  act  of 
throwing  them  away  still  more  significant)  ivhich  they  have  made  (an  in- 
definite construction,  equivalent  in  meaning  to  irhich  have  been  made),  for 
him  to  worship,  to  the  moles  and  to  the  hats  (a  proverbial  expression  for  con- 
temptuous rejection). — This  last  clause  has  by  some  been  connected  im- 
mediately with  what  precedes,  to  bow  doivn  to  moles  and  bats,  i.  e.  to  crouch 
for  concealment  in  their  dark  and  filthy  hiding-places  (Luzzatto),  or  to 
worship  images  as  blind  as  moles  and  bats  (Jerome),  or  to  worship  moles 
and  bats  themselves  (Sept.  Tar.  Vulg.  ut  adoraret  talpas  et  vespertiliones), 
thus   exchanging  one  form  of  idolatry  for  another  still  more   disgusting 
(Grotius).     But  as  the  context  relates  not  to  the  moral  deterioration  of 
idolaters,  but  to  their  terror  and  despair,  it  is  commonly  agreed  that  this 
clause  is  to  be  construed  with  the  verb  shall  cast,  and  the  words  immediately 
preceding  to  be  read  as  a  parenthesis.    The  idols  made  for  them  to  worship 
they  shall  cast  to  the  moles  and  bats,  not  to  idolaters  still  blinder  than 
themselves  (Glassius),  but  to  literal  moles  and  bats,  or  the  spots  which  they 
frequent,  ?.  e.  dark  and  filthy  places  (Knobel,  in  die  Rumpelkammer).— The 
word  "isn?  as  it  stands  in  all  editions  and  most  manuscripts,  is  the  infinitive 
of  "isn,  to  dig,  preceded  by  a  preposition  and  followed  b}'  a  plural  noun 
meaning  holes  (to  dig  holes,  Ivimchi)  or  rats  (to  the  digging  of  rats,  Ges. 
s.  v.).     But  as  five  manuscripts  make  these  two  words  one ;  as  several 
instances  of  long  words   erroneously  divided  occur  elsewhere   (1   Chron. 
xxxiv.  G ;  Jer.  xlvi.  20  ;  Lam.  iv.  3)  ;  and  as  the  next  word  is  also  an  un- 
usually long  one  with  the  veiy  same  particle  prefixed;  most  modern  writers 
are  agreed  that    the  true  reading  is  rillLnan*?  (Theodotion    a(pa»p»(JJd)  a 
plural  noun  derived,  b}'  doubling  two  radicals,  from  "i?n,  to  dig,  and  here 
used  as  the  name  of  an  animal,  probably  the  mole  (Jerome,  Hk.  Hn.  Ew.) ; 
for  although  moles  are  not  found,  like  bats,  in  dark  recesses,  they  may  be 
mentioned  for  that  very  reason  to  denote  that  the  idolaters  should  cast  away 
their  idols,  not  only  before  setting  out,  but  on  the  way  (Hn.  Ew.).     More 
probably,  however,  moles  and  bats  are  put  together  on  account  of  their 
defect  of  sight.     On  either  supposition,  it  is  needless  to  resort  to  the  rab- 
binical tradition  or  the  Arabic  analogy  for  other  meanings,  such  as  rats 
(Ges.  Maur.  DeW.)  or  sparrows  (Hg.)  or  nocturnal  birds  (Aben  Ezra). — The 
sense  of  I?"'>>n  is  man  in  a  collective  sense,  not  distributively  a  man  (E.  V. 
Low.  Bar.),  the  article  being  prefixed  to  universal  terms,  in  various  lan- 
guages, where  we  omit  it  (Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  107,  1.) — The  phrase  they  have 
made/or  him.  is  commonly  explained  as  a  sudden  enallage  or  change  of 
number,  really  meaning  theg  have  made  for  themselves  (Ges.  I)eW.  Hk.  Hn.). 
Others  suppose  an  abrupt  transition  from  a  collective  to  a  distributive  con- 
struction, which  the)/  have  made  each  one /or  himself  (E.  V.  Ros.).     Others 
refer  the  plural  to  the  artificers  or  idol-makers  (Hg.  Kn.).     Others  cut  the 
knot  by  making  the  verb  singular  (Um.)  or  by  omitting  i?  (Low.  Bar.),  as 
do  one  or  two  manuscripts.     The  simplest  construction  is  to  take  the  verb 
indcfinitel}',  and  to  make  v  mean  not  /or  himself  (Ewald,  die  man   sich 
machte)  but /or  Itim,  referring  to  man,  the  subject  of  the  sentence.     The 


Vek.  21,  22.J  ISAIAH  II.  107 

best  translation  of  this  clause  is  given  in  an  old  Frencli  version  (qu'on  lui 
aura  faites). — The  same  version  renders  a  preceding  phrase  the  idols  made  of 
his  silver,  and  the  same  construction  is  adopted  by  Umbreit  (die  Gotzen 
seines  Silbers).  But  the  suffix  really  belongs  to  the  governing  noun  (Hk.), 
or  rather  to  the  whole  complex  phrase  (Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  119,  3),  and  the 
expression  is  perfectly  equivalent  in  meaning  to  his  silver  idols  which  is 
given  in  some  versions  (Hn.  Ew.).  The  use  of  the  present  tense  in  render- 
ing this  verse  (Ges.  Hg.  De  W.  Hk.  Um.)  does  not  agree  so  well  with  the 
expression  in  that  day  as  the  old  common  future  form  retained  by  Ewald 
(vide  supra,  ad  ver.  11). — On  the  proverbial  sense  of  f/ivi)if/  to  the  hats,  as 
applied  to  the  desolated  families  and  houses,  see  Roberts's  Oriental  Illus- 
trations. 

21.  Continuing  the  sentence,  he  declares  the  end  for  which  they  should 
throw  away  their  idols,  namely,  to  save  themselves,  casting  them  off  as 
worthless  encumbrances  in  order  the  more  quickly  to  take  refuge  in  the 
rocks.  To  [fo  into  the  clefts  of  the  rocks,  and  into  the  fissures  of  the  cliffs  (or 
crags) //'ow  before  tJie  terror  of  Jehovah,  and  from  the  f/lory  of  his  majesty,  in 
his  arising  to  terrify  the  earth,  or  as  Lowth  more  poetically  renders,  to  strike 
the  earth  with  terror. — The  translation,  going,  in  going,  ivhen  they  go  (Vitr. 
Ges,  Hk.  Hn.),  as  if  the  acts  were  simultaneous,  rests  on  a  forced  construc- 
tion, and  leaves  out  of  view  the  very  end  for  which  they  are  described  as 
throwing  away  their  idols,  to  express  which  the  infinitive  must  have  its 
proper  meaning  (Hg.  Bar.  Ew.  Um.  Kn.). — The  substitution  oi  fiee  (Hg.) 
or  creep  (Ges.  Hk.  De  W.)  for  go  or  enter  is  allowable  in  paraphrase  but  not 
in  strict  translation. — The  English  phrases  ragged  rocks  (E.  V.)  and  craggy 
rocks  (Low.  Bar.)  depart  too  much  from  the  form  of  the  original,  which  is 
a  simple  noun,  as  well  as  from  its  etymological  import,  which  is  rather 
height  than  ruggedness. — The  meaning  of  ^3''VP  is  not  tops  (Calv.  Coco. 
E.  v.),  which  is  elsewhere  forbidden  by  the  context  (Judges  xv.  8,  11),  but 
fissures  (Sept.  GyjGn,dc,  Vulg.  cavernas),  answering  to  clefts,  ^?,  cliffs  to  rocks 
in  the  other  clause.  The  whole  phrase  is  rendered  by  a  compound  word  in 
the  German  versions  of  Luther  (Felskliifte),  De  Wette  (Bergkliifte),  and 
Hendewerk  (Felsblocke). — The  final  recurrence  of  the  same  refrain  which 
closed  the  eleventh  and  seventeenth  verses,  marks  the  conclusion  of  the 
choral  or  strophical  arrangement  at  this  verse,  the  next  beginning  a  new 
context, 

22.  Having  predicted  that  the  people  would  soon  lose  their  confidence 
in  idols,  he  now  shews  the  folly  of  transferring  that  confidence  to  human 
patrons,  by  a  general  statement  of  man's  weakness  and  mortality,  explained 
and  amplified  in  the  following  chapter.  Cease  ye  from  man  {i.e.,  cease 
to  trust  him  or  depend  upon  him),  whose  breath  is  in  his  nostrils  (i.  e. 
whose  life  is  transient  and  precarious,  with  obvious  allusion  to  Gen.  ii.  7), 

for  wherein  is  he  to  be  accounted  of  (or  at  what  rate  is  he  to  be  valued)  ? 
The  interrogation  forcibly  implies  that  man's  protection  cannot  be  relied 
upon. — The  version  is  he  valued  (De  Wette)  seems  inadequate,  the  passive 
participle  having  very  commonly  the  force  not  only  of  the  perfect  but  the 
lutiire  participle  in  Latin  (Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  131,  1).  The  reference  of  these 
general  expressions  to  Egypt  (Hk.  Kn.)  or  to  any  other  human  power  in 
particular,  disturbs  the  relation  of  this  verse,  as  a  general  proposition,  to 
the  specific  threatenings  in  the  following  chapter  : — Some  of  the  early  Jews 
maliciously  applied  this  verse  to  Christ,  and  their  Christian  opponents, 
instead  of  denying  such  a  reference  as  foreign  from  the  context  and  gratui- 
tous, admitted  it,  but  took  the  phrase  to  cease  from,  in  the  sense  of  letting 


108  ISAIAH  III. 

alone  or  ceasing  to  molest  (as  in  2  Chron.  xxxv.  21),  and  instead  of  ^M  in 
tchat,  read  nD2  a  hi(jh  place  (Origen,  Jerome  :  quia  excclsus  reputatus  est 
ipse).  This  strange  and  forced  construction  is  retained  by  some  of  the 
earlier  interpreters  of  modern  times  (CEcolampadius,  LjTanus,  Forerius, 
Mcnocbius).  Even  Luther's  version  or  rather  paraphrase  (ihr  wisset  nicht 
wie  hoch  er  geachtet  ist)  seems  to  presuppose  it,  but  may  possibly  be 
founded  on  a  misapplication  of  the  words  in  their  natural  and  proper  sense. 
In  the  Septuagiut  this  verse  is  wholly  wanting,  and  Vitringa  supposes  the 
translators  to  have  left  it  out,  as  being  an  unwelcome  truth  to  kings  and 
princes ;  but  such  a  motive  must  have  led  to  a  much  more  extensive  ex- 
purgation of  unpalatable  scriptures.  It  is  found  in  the  other  ancient  ver- 
sions, and  its  genuineness  has  not  been  disputed. — To  cease  from  is  to  let 
alone ;  in  what  specific  sense  must  be  determined  by  the  context  (compare 
2  Chron.  xxxv.  21  with  Prov.  xxiii.  4). — On  the  pleonastic  or  emphatic 
form,  cease  for  ijourselves,  see  Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  131,  3,  c. 


CHAPTEK  III. 

This  chapter  continues  the  threatenings  against  Judah  on  account  of 
the  prevailing  iniquities,  with  special  reference  to  female  pride  and  luxury. 

The  Prophet  first  explains  his  exhortation  at  the  close  of  the  last  chapter, 
by  shewing  that  God  was  about  to  take  away  the  leading  men  of  Judah, 
and  to  let  it  fall  into  a  state  of  anarchy,  vers.  1-7.  He  then  shews  that  this 
was  the  efiect  of  sin,  particularly  that  of  wicked  rulers,  vers.  8-15.  He  then 
exposes  in  detail  the  pride  and  luxury  of  the  Jewish  women,  and  threatens 
them  not  only  with  the  loss  of  that  in  which  they  now  delighted,  but  with 
widowhood,  captivity,  and  degradation,  ver.  IG— iv.  1. 

The  first  part  opens  with  a  general  prediction  of  the  loss  of  what  they 
trusted  in,  beginning  with  the  necessary  means  of  subsistence,  ver.  1.  We 
have  then  an  enumeration  of  the  public  men  who  were  about  to  be  removed, 
including  civil,  military,  and  religious  functionaries,  with  the  practitioners 
of  certain  arts,  vers.  2,  3.  As  the  efiect  of  this  removal,  the  government  falls 
into  incompetent  hands,  ver.  4.  This  is  followed  by  insubordination  and  con- 
fusion, ver.  5.  At  length,  no  one  is  willing  to  accept  public  office,  the  people 
are  \\Tetched,  and  the  commonwealth  a  ruin,  vers.  C,  7. 

This  ruin  is  declared  to  be  the  consequence  of  sin,  and  the  people  repre- 
sented as  their  own  destroyers,  vers.  8,  9.  God's  judgments,  it  is  true,  are 
not  indiscriminate.  The  innocent  shall  not  perish  with  the  guilty,  but  the 
guilty  must  sufi'er,  vers.  10, 11.  Incompetent  and  fiiithless  rulers  must  espe- 
cially be  punished,  who,  instead  of  being  the  guardians,  are  the  spoilers  of 
the  vineyard  ;  instead  of  protectors,  the  oppressors  of  the  poor,  vers.  12-15. 

As  a  principal  cause  of  these  prevailing  evils,  the  Prophet  now  denounces 
female  luxury,  and  threatens  it  with  condign  punishment,  privation,  and, 
disgrace,  vers.  IG,  17.  This  general  denunciation  is  then  amplified  at  great 
length,  in  a  detailed  enumeration  of  the  ornaments  which  were  about  to  be 
taken  from  them,  and  succeeded  by  the  badges  of  captivity  and  mourning, 
vers.  18-24.  The  agency  to  be  employed  in  this  retribution  is  a  disastrous 
war,  by  which  the  men  are  to  be  swept  ofl',  and  the  country  left  desolate, 
vers.  25,  2G.  The  extent  of  this  calamity  is  represented  by  a  lively  exhibi- 
tion of  the  disproportion  between  the  male  survivors  and  the  other  sex, 
suggesting  at  the  same  time  the  forlorn  condition  of  the  widows  of  the 
slain,  chap.  iv.  1. 


Ver.  1,  2.]  ISAIAH  III.  109 

1.  This  verse  assigns,  as  a  reason  for  tlie  exhortation  in  the  one  pre- 
ceding, that  God  was  about  to  take  away  from  the  people  every  ground 
of  reliance,  natural  and  moral.  Cease  ye  from  man,  i.  e.  cease  to  trust 
in  any  human  protection,  for  behold  (implying  a  proximate  futurity)  the 
Lord  (God  considered  as  a  sovereign)  Jehovah  of  Hosts  (as  self-existent 
and  eternal,  and  at  the  same  time  as  the  God  of  revelation  and  the  God 
of  his  people)   is  takiufi  away  (or  about  to  take  away)//-o/«  Jerusalem  and 

from  Judah  (not  only  from  the  capital,  but  from  the  whole  kingdom)  the 
stay  and  the  staff  (i.e.  all  kinds  of  support,  and  first  of  all),  the  xihole  stay 
of  bread,  and  the  whole  stay  of  water  (the  natural  and  necessary  means  of 
subsistence).  The  terms  are  applicable  either  to  a  general  famine  produced 
by  natural  causes,  or  to  a  scarcity  arising  from  invasion  or  blockade,  such 
as  actually  took  place  when  Judah  was  overrun  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (2 
Kings  XXV.  4;  Jer.  Hi.  6;  xxxviii.  9;  Lam.  iv.  4). — Instead  of  the  ichole 
stay,  prose  usage  would  require  every  stay,  the  form  adopted  by  Gesenius 
and  the  later  Germans.  But  the  other  construction  is  sustained  by  the 
analogy  of  the  whole  head  and  the  ivhole  heart,  chap.  i.  5,  and  by  the  im- 
possibility of  expressing  this  idea  otherwise  without  circumlocution,  as  the 
addition  of  another  noun  excludes  the  article. — The  old  version  stay  and 
staff  is  an  approximation  to  the  form  of  the  original,  in  which  a  mascu- 
line and  feminine  form  of  the  same  noun  are  combined,  by  an  idiom 
common  in  Arabic,  and  not  unknown  in  Hebrew  (Nah,  ii.  13),  to  denote 
universality,  or  rather  all  kinds  of  the  object  named.  This  form  of  ex- 
pression is  retained  in  the  Greek  versions  (Sept.  Uyjjovra  xal  layjjoMSav. 
Aqu.  'i^iiciMa  xai  i^iiGixov.  Sjmm..  G7y}^i'y,u,a  zai' grrieiyfiov),  and  the  Jewish- 
Spanish  (sustentador  y  sustentadora).  Others  imitate  it  merely  by  com- 
bining synonymes  alike  in  form  (Calv.  vigorem  et  vim.  Vitr.  fulcimentum 
et  fulturam.  Hitz.  Stiitze  und  StUtzpunkt ;  Ew.  Stab  und  Stiitze).  Others 
simply  give  the  sense  by  reading  every  stay  (Ges.),  all  stays  of  every  kind 
(J.  D.  Mich.),  one  stay  after  another  (Hk.),  &c. — The  last  clause  is  re- 
jected as  a  gloss  by  Gesenius  in  his  commentary,  on  the  ground  that  its 
explanation  of  the  first  clause  as  denoting  food  and  drink  is  inconsistent 
with  the  subsequent  context,  which  explains  it  to  mean  public  men.  This 
objection  is  withdrawn  in  the  second  edition  of  his  German  version,  but 
renewed  by  Hitzig  and  Knobel,  with  the  addition  of  another,  viz.,  that 
water  is  not  a  stay  or  staff  of  life.  The  last  is  frivolous,  and  the  other 
gi'oundless,  as  the  last  clause  is  not  an  explanation  of  the  fii'st,  but  begins 
a  specification  of  particulars  included  in  it.  The  stays  of  which  they  were 
to  be  deprived  were  first  the  stay  of  food,  ver.  1,  and  then  the  stay  of  go- 
vernment, vers.  2,  3. 

2.  Next  to  the  necessary  means  of  subsistence,  the  Prophet  enumerates 
the  great  men  of  the  commonwealth,  vers.  2,  3.  The  first  clause  has  refer- 
ence to  military  strength,  the  second  to  civil  and  religious  dignities.  In 
the  second  clause  there  is  an  inverse  parallehsm,  the  first  and  fourth  terms 
denoting  civil  ofiicers,  the  second  and  third  religious  ones.  The  omission 
of  the  article  before  the  nouns,  though  not  uncommon  in  poetry,  adds  much 
to  the  rapidity  and  life  of  the  description.  Hero  and  xmrrior,  judge  and 
prophet,  and  diviner  and  elder. — That  the  first  is  not  a  generic  term  includ- 
ing all  that  follow  (the  great  men,  viz.  the  warriors,  &c.)  is  clear  from  the 
parallelism,  the  terms  being  arranged  in  pairs,  as  often  elsewhere  (chaps. 
xi.  2  ;  xix.  3,  6-9 ;  xxii.  12,  13  ;  xlii.  19). — The  idea  here  expressed  by 
"I13|  is  not  simply  that  of  personal  strength  and  prowess  (Sept.  yiyavra  xai 
is^vovTo),  but  the  higher  one  of  military  eminence  or  heroism  (J.  D.  Mich. 


110  ISAIAH  III.  [Ver.  3. 

Ges.  Hn.,  &c.). — The  literal  version  of  the  next  phrase,  vian  of  irar,  has 
acquired  a  ditlerent  sense  in  modern  English.  It  may  here  denote  either  a 
wan-ior  of  high  rank,  as  synonymous  with  "113;!  (Vitr.  militia  clarum)  or  one 
of  ordinary  rank,  as  distinguished  from  it  (Cocc.  ducem  et  militem  ;  Kn. 
Oberste  und  Gemeine).  Compare  2  Sam.  xxiii.  8. — Judge  may  either  be 
taken  in  its  restricted  modern  sense  (Hk.),  or  in  the  wider  one  of  magistrate 
or  ruler. — To  avoid  the  supposed  incongruity  of  coupling  the  prophet  and 
diviner  together,  some  take  ^''33  iu  the  bad  sense  of  a  false  or  an  unfaithful 
prophet  (J.  D.  Mich.  Ges.  Hg.)  ;  others  take  DDp  in  the  good  sense  of  a 
scribe  (Targ.),  a  prudent  man  (E.  V.),  or  a  sagacious  prognosticator  or 
adviser  (Sept.  Grot.  Bar.)  ;  while  Hendewerk  refers  both  words  to  the  pro- 
phet, making  the  first  denote  his  office  as  a  preacher,  and  the  second  as  a 
foreteller;  all  which  is  lirbitrary,  contrary  to  usage,  and  entirely  super- 
fluous. The  people  are  threatened  with  the  loss  of  all  their  siai/s,  good  or 
bad,  true  or  false.  Vera  et  falsa  a  Judccis  pariter  auferentur  (Jerome). — 
The  last  word  in  the  verse  is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  primary  and  proper 
sense  of  old  man  (Vulg.  senem),  much  less  in  the  factitious  one  of  sage 
(Low.)  or  icise  man  (Bs.),  since  all  the  foregoing  terms  are  tllles  denoting 
rank  and  office,  but  in  its  secondary  sense  of  elder  (Sept.  TrgEc/Siris&i/.  Lu. 
Aeltesten)  or  hereditary  chief,  and  as  such,  a  magistrate  under  the  patri- 
ai'chal  sj'stem.  It  is  here  equivalent  or  parallel  to  judge,  the  one  term 
denoting  the  functions  of  the  office,  the  other  the  right  by  which  it  was 
held. — The  change  of  the  singulars  in  this  verse  for  plurals  (Luth.  J.  D. 
Mich.),  though  it  does  not  aflect  the  sense,  weakens  its  expression. 

3.  To  persons  of  official  rank  and  influence,  the  Prophet  adds,  in  order 
to  complete  his  catalogue,  practitioners  of  those  arts  upon  which  the  people 
set  most  value.  As  the  prophet  and  diviner  stand  together  in  ver.  2,  so 
mechanical  and  magical  arts  are  put  together  here.  The  first  clause  simply 
finishes  the  list  of  public  functionaries  which  had  been  begun  in  the  preced- 
ing verse.  The  chief  of  fifty,  and  the  favourite,  and  the  counsellor,  und  the 
skilful  artificer,  and  the  expert  enchanter. — The  first  title  is  derived  from  the 
decimal  arrangement  of  the  people  in  the  wilderness  for  judicial  purposes 
(Exod.  xviii.  25,  26),  but  is  afterwards  used  only  as  a  military  title.  Hit- 
zig  and  Knobel  understand  it  here  as  denoting  an  officer  of  low  rank,  in 
opposition  to  icarrior  in  the  verse  preceding. — The  next  phrase  literally 
signifies  lifted  up  in  countenance  (Vulg.  honorabilem  vultu),  which  is  com- 
monly understood  as  a  description  of  an  eminent  or  honourable  person. 
But  as  the  same  words  are  employed  to  signify  respect  of  persons  or  judicial 
partiality,  the  phrase  may  here  denote  one  highly  favoured  by  a  sovereign, 
a  royal  favourite  (2  Kings  v.  1 ;  Lev.  ix.  15  ;  Deut.  x.  17  ;  Job  xiii.  10; 
Mai.  ii.  9),  or  respected,  reverenced  by  the  people  (Lam.  iv.  IG  ;  Deut. 
xviii.  50).  Luther  translates  it  as  a  plural  or  collective  by  respectable 
people  (ehrliche  Leute). — The  counsellor  here  meant  is  not  a  private  or  pro- 
fessional adviser,  but  a  public  counsellor  or  minister  of  state. — D^C  is  here 
used  in  what  seems  to  be  its  primary  sense  of  skilful,  with  respect  to  art 
(compare  ffoeo;  in  Passow's  Greek  Lexicon). — The  explanation  of  ^X"^0, 
as  denoting  occult  arts  (Cler.  Ges.  Hg.  Hn.  Ewald,  Ilexenmeister),  though 
countenanced  by  Chaldee  and  SjTiac  analogies,  has  no  Hebrew  usage  to 
support  it,  and  the  expression  of  the  same  idea  in  the  other  clause  is  rather 
a  reason  for  applying  this  to  the  mechanical  arts,  as  is  done  by  Ihe  Scptua- 
gint  {ao(plv  diyjrix.r ova),  Luther  (weise  Werkleute),  Yitringa  (mechanicarum 
artium  peritum),  Knobel,  and  others.  Umbreit  seems  to  apply  the  term 
specially  to  the  manufacture  of  idols,  as  J.  D.  Michaclis  does  to  that  of 


Ver.  i,  5.]  ISAIAH  III.  Ill 

arms  (gute  Waffenschmiede).  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  may  have  been  led  to 
reject  this  old  interpretation  by  a  desire  to  evade  the  remarkable  coinci- 
dence between  this  prophecy  and  the  fact  recorded  in  2  Kngs  xxiv.  14,  16. 
— The  last  word  in  the  verse  is  taken  strictly,  as  denoting  a  "  whisper  "  or 
the  act  of  whispering,  by  Aquila  (suMitov  -sI^iS-jpis/xui),  Cocceius  (prudentem 
susurrorum),  and  Hitzig  (kundigen  des  Gefiiisters)  ;  but  its  secondary 
sense  of  incantation,  with  allusion  to  the  mutterings  and  whisperings  which 
formed  a  part  of  magical  ceremonies,  by  Symmachus  {o/jmJu  /j.vsrjy.yj),  the 
Vulgate  (eloquii  mystici),  and  most  modern  writers.  According  to'  J.  D. 
MichaeHs  and  Gesenius,  it  specially  denotes  the  charming  of  serpents.  The 
sense  oi  eloquent  orator  (Lu.  Calv.  Jun.  E.  V.  Vitr.  Low.)  seems  altogether 
arbitrary.  The  analagous  phrase  13^  jU;  (1  Sam.  xvi.  18),  to  which 
Rosenmiiller  refers,  is  itself  of  doubtful  import,  and  proves  nothing. 

4.  The  natm-al  consequence  of  the  removal  of  the  leading  men  must  be 
the  rise  of  incompetent  successors,  persons  without  capacity,  experience,'  or 
principle,  a  change  which  is  here  ascribed  to  God's  retributive  justice.  And 
I  will  give  children  to  be  their  rulers,  and  childish  thinf/s  shall  rjovern  them. 
Some  apply  this,  in  a  strict  sense,  to  the  weak  and  -ndcked  reign  of  Ahaz 
(Ew.  Hg.  Hk.  Kn.),  others  in  a  wider  sense  to  the  series  of  weak  kings 
after  Isaiah  (Gro.  Low.)  But  there  is  no  need  of  restricting  it  to  kings  at 
all,  as  li^  denotes  a  ruler  in  general,  and  in  ver.  3  is  apphed  to  rulers  of 
inferior  rank.  The  most  probable  opinion  is  that  the  incompetent  rulers 
are  called  boys  or  children  not  in  respect  to  age  but  character,  "  non  ratione 
setatis  sed  imprudently  et  ineptitudinis  "  (J.  H.  Mich.).  Calvin,  Cocceius, 
Lowth,  and  Gesenius  take  D^>l'?yri  as  a  simple  equivalent  to  C^IJJ,  and  J. 
D.  MichaeHs  translates  it  sucklings.  Hitzig  makes  it  qualify  the  verb  in- 
stead of  agreeing  with  it  as  its  subject.  "  They  (the  children)  sball  rule 
over  them  with  arbitrary  cruelty."  Hendewerk  and  Knobel  give  the  same 
meaning  to  the  noun,  but  retain  the  usual  construction.  '*  And  tyranny 
shall  rule  over  them."  Most  probably,  however,  Dv-ipyn  is  an  abstract 
term  used  for  the  concrete,  2)ueritities  or  childishness  for  childish  persons,  or 
still  more  contemptuously,  childish  things  (Lu.  Ew.  Um.)    The  Targum  has 

weaJdings  (X'-ti'Pn),  the  Septuagint  s/jb-rrarATai,  the  Vulgate  efoeminati,  Junius 
and  Tremellius  facinorosi. 

5.  As  the  preceding  verse  describes  bad  government,  so  this  describes 
anarchy,  the  suspension  of  all  government,  and  a  consequent  disorder  in  the 
relations  of  society,  betraying  itself  in  mutual  violence,  and  in  the  disregard 
of  natural  and  artificial  claims  to  deference.  And  the  i^eople  shall  act 
tyrannically,  man  against  man,  and  man  against  his  fellow.  They  shall 
he  insolent,  the  youth  to  the  old  man,  and  the  mean  man  to  the  noble. 
The  passive  construction,  the  peoj^le  shall  be  opjnessed  (E.  V.  Low.  Bar,), 
does  not  agree  so  well  wdth  the  usage  of  the  preposition  following  as  the 
reflexive  one  now  commonly  adopted.  The  insertion  of  another  verb  (inan 
striving  against  man,  Bar.)  is  wholly  unnecessary.  The  second  verb  is 
commonly  explained  to  mean  the  insolence  or  arrogance  of  upstarts  to  their 
betters  (Calv.  insolescet.  Fr.  Vs.  se  portera  arrogamment)  ;  but  the  best 
lexicogi-aphers  give  it  the  stronger  sense  of  acting  ferociously  (Cocc.  Ges. 
"Winer,  Fiixst),  or,  to  combine  both  ideas,  with  ferocious  insolence.  (Hitzi«, 
stiirmen.  Gesenius,  losstUrmen  ;  Hendewerk,  wiithet ;  Henderson,  outrage.) 
— The  passive  participles  in  the  last  clause  properly  signify  despised  and 
honoured,  i.  e.  once  despised,  once  honoured  (Cler.  qui  antea  spretus  erat)  ; 
or,  according  to  tke  common  idiomatic  usage  of  passive  participles,  to  be 


112  ISAIAH  III.  [Ver.  6,  7. 

despisf'd,  to  he  honoured,  not  so  much  with  reference  to  moral  character  as 
to  rank  and  position  in  society.  The  restriction  of  the  first  clause  to  the 
ri<^orous  exaction  of  debts  (Clericus)  is  inconsistent  with  the  context  and  the 
parallelism.  On  contempt  of  old  age,  as  a  sign  of  barbarism,  see  Lam.  iv, 
1() ;  Deut  xxviii.  50.  Eight  manuscripts  and  fifteen  editions  read  ^'J3  for 
b'J3,  but  all  the  ancient  versions  presuppose  the  common  reading. 

0.  Having  predicted  the  removal  of  those  qualified  to  govern,  the  rise 
of  incompetent  successors,  and  a  consequent  insubordination  and  confusion, 
the  Prophet  now  describes  this  last  as  having  reached  such  a  height  that 
no  one  is  willing  to  hold  office,  or,  as  Matthew  Henry  says,  "  the  govern- 
ment goes  a-begging."     This  verse,  not^vithstanding  its  length,  seems  to 
contain  only  the  protasis  or  conditional  clause  of  the  sentence,  in  which  the 
commonwealth  is  represented  as  a  ruin,  and  the  task  of  managing  it  pressed 
upon  one  living  in  retirement,  on  the  ground  that  he  still  possesses  decent 
raiment,  a  lively  picture  both  of  general  anarchy  and  general  \n-etchedness. 
When  a  man  shall  take  hold  of  his  brother  (?.  e.,  one  man  of  another)  in  his 
father  s  house  (at  home  in  a  private  station,  saying,)  thou  hast,  raiment,  a 
ruler  shall  thou  be  to  us,  and  this  ruin  (shall  be)  under  thy  hand  (/.  e.  under 
thy  power,  control,  and  management).     It  is  equally  consistent  with  the 
syntax  and  the  usage  of  the  words  to  understand  the  man  as  addressing  his 
brother,  in  the  proper  sense,  or  in  that  of  a  near  kinsman,  of  or  belonging 
to  the  house  of  his  (the  speaker's)  father,  /.  e.  one  of  the  same  family  (Vulg. 
domesticum  patris  sui.    J.  H.  Mich.,  cognatum.    Hendew.,  Einen  von  den 
seinen).     But  the  oficr  would  then  seem  to  be  simply  that  of  headship  or 
chieftainship  over  a  family  or  house,  whereas  a  wider  meaning  is  required 
by  the  connection.     For  raiment,  Henderson  reads  an  abundant  irardrobe, 
and  explains  the  phrase  as  meaning,  thou  art  rich,  because  clothing  forms  a 
large  part  of  oriental  wealth,  and  the  same  explanation  is  given  in  substance 
by  Clericus,  Hendewerk,  Barnes,  and  Umbreit.     But  Yitringa,  Gesenius, 
Rosenmilller,  Knobel,  and  others,  understand  the  words  more  probably  as 
meaning  "  thou  hast  still  a  garment,"  whereas  we  have  none,  implying  gene- 
ral distress  as  well  as  anarchy.    Vitringa  and  Lowth  make  n37  a  verb,  as  it 
is  elsewhere,  meaning  go  or  come,  as  a  particle  of  exhortation  (vide  supra 
chap.  ii.  3),  and  connect  n?pE?'  with  what  precedes,  but  in  different  ways. 
Vitringa's  construction  is  that  a  man  shall  lay  hold  of  his  brother,  in  nhose 
j)aternal  house  there  is  raiment,  saying,  come  on  (agedum),  &c.     Lowth's, 
that  a  man  shall  lay  hold  of  his  brother  hi/  the  garment,  saying,  come,   Sec. 
All  other  writers  seem  to  be  agreed  that  HD?  is  an  unusual  mode  of  WTiting 
^?  (see  Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  35). — The  ^3  at  the  beginning  has  been  variously 
rendered,  for,  because  (Sept.    Targ.  Vulg.   Pesh.),   therefore  (Lowth),   if 
(Junius),  then  if  (Ros.),  then  (Lu.  Ges.  Bar.  Kn.).      Henderson  uses  the 
periphrasis   should  any  one,  &c.     Hitzig  and  Ewald  agree  with  Calvin, 
Vitringa,  Clericus,  and  the  English  Bible  in  rendering  it  ichen,  and  regard- 
ing the  two  verses  as  one  continuous  sentence. — The  word  saying,  in  the 
first  clause,  is  inserted  by  two  manuscripts,  and  supplied  by  most  versions 
ancient  and  modem. — Thirty-five  manuscripts  and  two  editions  read  ^*T!J  in 
the  plural. 

7.  This  verse  contains  the  refusal  of  the  invitation  given  in  the  one 
preceding.  In  that  day  he  shall  lift  up  (his  voice  in  reply)  saying,  I  will 
7iot  be  a  healer,  and  in  my  house  there  is  no  bread,  and  there  is  no  cloth- 
ing ;  ye  shall  not  make  me  a  ruler  of  the  people.  In  that  day  may  either 
mean  at  once,  without  deliberation,  or  continue  the  narrative  without  special 
empliasis.     Some  supply  hand  after  lift  up,  as  a  gesture  of  swearing,  or 


Ver.  8.]  ISAIAH  III.  113 

the  name  of  God  as  in  the  third  commandment,  and  understand  the  phrase 
to  mean  that  he  shall  swear  (Saad.  Lu.  Calv.  E.  V.,  J.  D.  Mich.),  But  the 
great  majority  of  writers  supply  voice,  some  in  the  specific  sense  of  answer- 
ing (Sept.  Vulg.  Targ.  Pesh.  Cler.)  or  in  the  simple  sense  of  uttering  (Cocc. 
Ges.  De  W.  Ew.),  but  others  with  more  probability  in  that  of  speaking  with 
a  loud  voice  (Vitr.  Ros.),  or  distinctly  and  with  emphasis,  he  shall  j)rotest 
(Hn.)  or  openly  declare  (Low.).  The  Vulgate,  Luther,  and  Gesenius,  have 
I  am  not  a  healer,  but  if  that  were  the  sense,  the  verb  would  probably  be 
suppressed.  The  meaning  of  the  words  seem  to  be  either  7  cannot,  as  a 
confession  of  unfitness  (Targ.  Ros.  De.  W.  Hk.  Um.),  or  /  will  not,  as  an 
expression  of  invincible  aversion  (Caly.  Cocc.  Cler.  E.  V.  Low.  Hn.  Kn.). — 
The  Septuagint  and  Clericus  take  t^5n  in  the  sense  of  prince  or  perfect. 
Cocceius  translates  it  literally  binding,  Ewald  binder.  Saadias  makes  it 
mean  one  who  binds  his  head  with  a  diadem  ;  Montanus  an  executioner  like 
the  Latin  lictor.  The  true  sense  of  hecder  is  given  by  the  Vulgate  (medi- 
cus),  Calvin  (curator),  Luther  (Artzt),  and  most  of  the  later  versions.  There 
is  no  need  of  reading /o?-  in  my  house  (Calv.  Cler.  Hn.  Ew.  Kn.),  as  the 
words  do  not  directly  give  a  reason  for  refusing,  but  simply  deny  the  fact 
alleged  in  the  request.  Clericus,  Lowth,  and  Henderson  carry  out  their 
interpretation  of  the  previous  verse  by  supposing  the  excuse  here  given  to  be 
that  he  was  not  rich  enough  to  clothe  and  feast  the  people  as  oriental  chiefs 
are  expected  to  do.  But  the  whole  connection  seems  to  shew  that  it  is  a 
profession  of  great  poverty,  which,  if  true,  shews  more  clearly  the  condition 
of  the  people,  and  if  false,  the  general  aversion  to  office.  The  last  clause 
does  not  simply  mean  do  not  make  vie,  but  you  must  not,  or  you  shall  not 
make  me  a  ruler.  Gesenius  and  all  the  later  Germans  except  Ewald  sub- 
stitute the  descriptive  present  for  the  future  in  this  verse. 

8.  The  Prophet  here  explains  his  use  of  the  word  ruin  in  reference 
to  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  by  declaring  that  it  had  in  fact  destroyed 
itself  by  the  ofience  which  its  iniquities  had  given  to  the  holiness  of  God, 
here  compared  to  the  sensitiveness  of  the  human  eye.  Do  not  wonder  at  its 
being  cdMedi  ^lxuiq,  for  Jerusalem  totters  and  Judah  falls  (or  Jerusalem  is 
tottering  and  Judah  falling),  because  their  tongue  and  their  doings  (words  and 
deeds  being  put  for  the  whole  conduct)  are  against  Jehovah  (strictly  to  or 
towards,  but  in  this  connection  necessarily  implying  opposition  and  hostility), 
to  resist  (/.  e.  so  as  to  resist,  implying  both  the  purpose  and  efiect)  his  glori- 
ous eyes  (and  thereby  to  offend  them).  The  Peshito  seems  to  take  these  as 
the  words  of  the  man  refusing  to  govern  ;  but  they  are  really  those  of  the 
Prophet  explaining  his  refusal,  or  rather  one  of  the  expresisioDS  used  in  mak- 
ing the  ofier,  as  i^ftps  clearly  involves  an  allusion  to  n??J'?D  one  of  its  deriva- 
tives. The  *?  is  therefore  not  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  yea  (Um.) 
or  surely  (Calv.),  but  in  its  proper  sense  oi  for,  because  (Sept.  Vulg.  &c.). 
Here  as  in  chap.  i.  16,  ^y^V.p  is  variously  rendered  ad  inventiones  (Vulg.),  stu- 
dia  (Calv.),  conata  (Mont.j,  but  the  only  meaning  justified  by  etymology  is 
that  of  actions.  Cocceius,  who  refers  the  whole  prophecy  to  the  times  of 
the  New  Testament,  understands  by  their  resisting  God's  glorious  eyes,  the 
opposition  of  the  Jews  to  the  Son  of  God  when  personally  present.  Totter 
and  fall  are  supposed  by  some  to  be  in  antithesis,  contrasting  the  calamitiea 
of  Jerusalem  with  the  worse  calamities  of  Judah  (Knobel),  or  the  partial 
downfall  of  the  kingdom  under  Ahaz,  with  its  total  downfall  under  Zedekiah 
(Vitringa)  ;  but  they  are  more  probably  poetical  equivalents,  asserting  the 
same  fact,  that  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  though  pecuUarly  the  Lord's,  were 

VOL.  I.  H 


114  ISAIAH  111.  [Ver.  9,  10. 

nevertheless  to  fall  and  be  destroyed  for  their  iniquities.— The  present  form 
is  adopted  here,  not  only  by  the  modern  writers,  but  by  the  Septuagint, 
Vulgate  and  Luther.  The  emendation  of  the  text  by  changing  \JJ/  to  |^V 
(Low.)  or  ^^V  (J-  3^-  Mich.),  is  needless  and  without  authority. — For  the 
orthography  of  ''^V.,  see  Ewald's  Heb.  Gr.  §  30. 

9.  As  they  make  no  secret  of  their  depravity,  and  as  sin  and  suffering 
are  inseparably  connected,  they  must  bear  the  blame  of  their  own  destruc- 
tion. The  expression  of  their  countenances  testifies  ar/ainst  them,  and  their 
sin,  like  Sodom,  they  disclose,  they  hide  it  not.  Woe  unto  their  soul,  for  they 
have  done  evil  to  themselves. — The  first  clause  is  applied  to  respect  of  persons 
or  judicial  partiality,  by  the  Targum  (X3n2),  Clericus  (habita  hominum 
ratio),  Hitzig  (ihr  Ansehn  der  Person),  and  Gesenius  in  his  Thesaurus. 
This  construction  is  favoured  by  the  usage  of  the  phrase  Q''^3  "I""?!?  (Deut. 
i.  17,  xvi.  19  ;  Prov.  xxiv.  23,  xxviii.  21) ;  but  the  context  seems  to  shew 
that  the  Prophet  has  reference  to  general  character  and  not  to  a  specific 
sin,  while  the  parallel  expressions  in  this  verse  make  it  almost  certain  that 
the  phrase  relates  to  the  expression  of  the  countenance.  Some  explain  it 
accordingly  of  a  particular  expression,  such  as  shame  (Sept.),  impudence 
(Vulg.),  obduracy  (Jun.),  stedfastness  (Lowlh),  confusion  (Ges.),  insensi- 
bility (Ew.).  But  the  various  and  even  contradictory  senses  thus  put  upon 
the  word  may  serve  to  shew  that  it  is  more  correctly  understood,  as  de- 
noting the  expression  of  the  countenance  generally,  by  Calvin  (probatio), 
Cocceius  (adspectus),  Gussetius  (quod  dant  cognoscendum),  the  English 
Version  (shew),  De  Wette  (Ausdruck),  and  other  recent  writers.  The 
sense  is  not  that  their  looks  betray  them,  but  that  they  make  no  effort  at 
concealment,  as  appears  from  the  reference  to  Sodom.  Quod  unum 
habebant  in  peccatis  bonum  perdunt,  peccandi  verecundiam  (Seneca). — The 
expression  of  the  same  idea  first  in  a  positive  and  then  in  a  negative  form 
is  not  uncommon  in  Scripture,  and  is  a  natural  if  not  an  English  idiom. 
Madame  d'Arblay,  in  her  Memoirs  of  Dr  Burney,  speaks  of  Omiah,  the 
Tahitian  brought  home  by  Captain  Cook,  as  "  uttering  first  affirmatively 
and  then  negatively  all  the  little  sentences  that  he  attempted  to  pronounce." 
For  examples  involving  this  same  verb  ID?,  see  Josh.  vii.  19  ;  1  Sam. 
iii.  17,  18.  The  explanation  of  -vP,^  as  meaning  recompence,  reivnrd 
(Vulg.  Cler.  E.  V.  Um.),  is  rejected  by  most  of  the  modern  writers,  who 
make  it  correspond  very  nearly  to  the  English  treat,  in  the  sense  of  doing 
either  good  or  evil.  "  They  have  treated  themselves  ill,  or  done  evil  to 
themselves  "  (Cocc.  sibimet  ipsis  male  faciunt.  Ewald :  sie  thaten  sich 
bcises).  Hengstenberg  maintains  (Comm.  on  Psalm  \Ai.  5)  that  the  verb 
means  properly  to  do  good,  and  is  used  in  a  bad  sense  only  by  a  kind  of 
irony.  The  phrase  to  their  soid  may  be  understood  strictly  (Calv.  E.  V. 
Hg.  De  W.)  or  as  meaning  to  their  life  (Cler.  Ges.)  ;  but  the  singular  form 
of  the  noun  seems  to  imply  that  it  is  used  as  a  periphrasis  for  the  reflexive 
pronoun  to  themselves.  David  Kimchi  says  that  his  father  derived  ri^3n 
from  ">?n  to  be  hard,  making  the  H  radical ;  but  the  derivation  from  1?p  is 
now  universally  adopted. 

10.  The  righteous  are  encouraged  by  the  assurance  that  the  judgments 
of  God  shall  not  be  indiscriminate.  Say  ye  of  the  righteous  that  it  shall  be 
xjcell,  for  the  fruits  of  their  doings  they  shall  eat.  The  object  of  address 
seems  to  be  not  the  prophets  or  ministers  of  God,  but  the  people  at  large 
or  men  indefinitely.  The  concise  and  elliptical  first  clause  may  be  variously 
construed — "  Say,  it  is  right  (or  righteous)  that  (they  should  eat)  good, 
that  they  should  cat  the  fi-uit  of  their  doings." — "  Say,  it  is  right  (or  God 


Ver.  11-13.]  ISAIAH  III.  115 

is  righteous),  for  it  is  good  that  they  should  eat,"  &c. — "  Say  (what  is) 
right,"  i.e.  pronounce  just  judgment.  The  verb  is  made  to  govern  P'''!IV 
directly  by  Vitriuga  (justum  prsedicate  beatum),  Lowth  (pronounce  ye  a 
blessing  on  the  righteous),  Gesenius  (preiset  den  Gerechten).  The  pre- 
position to  is  supplied  by  the  Targum,  Peshito,  Vulgate  (dicite  justo), 
English  Version,  Barnes,  and  Henderson.  The  construction  most  agree- 
able to  usage  is  that  given  by  Luther,  J,  D.  Michaelis,  De  Wette,  Hende- 
werk,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Kuobel — "  Say  ye^f  the  righteous  (or  concerning 
him)  that,"  &c.  One  manuscript  reads  75^<^  in  the  singular,  but  the 
plural  form  agi^ees  with  P^'^V  as  a  collective. 

11.  This  is  the  converse  of  the  foregoing  proposition,  a  threatening 
corresponding  to  the  promise.  Woe  wito  the  wicked,  (it  shall  be)  ill  (with 
him),  /'o?-  the  thinri  done  hji  his  hands  shall  he  done  to  him. — Calvin  and 
Ewald  separate  V^''}7  from  ''i^?  and  connect  it  with  V}  "  woe  (or  alas  ! )  to 
the  wicked  it  is  (or  shall  be)  ill,"  a  construction  favoured  by  the  Masoretic 
accents.  Ivimchi  makes  V^  agree  with  yt^l  in  the  sense  of  an  evil  wicked 
man,  i.e.  one  who  is  wicked  both  towards  God  and  man.  (See  Gill  ad  loc.) 
This  interpretation  is  adopted  by  Luther,  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Clericus,  and 
J.  H.  Michaelis.  De  Wette,  Hendewerk,  and  Knobel  give  the  same  con- 
struction, but  take  V^  in  the  sense  of  wretched,  "  woe  to  the  wicked,  the 
unhappy."  But  Vl  seems  evidently  parallel  to  2113  in  ver.  10,  and  cannot 
therefore  be  a  mere  epithet.  Umbreit  follows  the  Vulgate,  Clericus,  &c., 
in  giving  to  ^'I^J  the  sense  of  recompence.  Luther  and  Henderson  explain 
it  to  mean  merit  or  desert;  Calvin,  Lowth,  and  Gesenius,  more  correctly 
ivork. 

12.  The  Prophet  now  recurs  to  the  evil  of  unworthy  and  incapable 
rulers,  and  expresses,  by  an  exclamation,  wonder  and  concern  at  the  result. 
My  peojAe !  their  oppressors  are  childish,  and  ivomen  rale  over  them.  My 
jjeople !  thy  leaders  are  seducers,  and  the  icay  of  thy  paths  (the  way  where 
thy  path  lies)  tJiey  sivallow  up  (cause  to  disappear,  destroy). — "^y  is  usually 
construed  in  the  fu"st  clause  as  an  absolute  nominative  ;  but  by  making  it 
(as  Umbreit  does)  an  exclamation,  the  parallelism  becomes  more  exact. — 
Gesenius  and  Hitzig  explain  l^i'i'  ^s  a,  plaralis  majestaticus  referring  to 
Ahaz,  which  is  needless  and  arbitrary.  7/?yp  is  in  the  singular  because  it  is 
used  adjectively,  the  predicate  being  often  in  the  singular  when  the  subject 
is  plm'al.  (Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  144,  6,  c.)  Instead  of  thy  yuides,  Luther 
reads  thy  comforters ;  others,  those  ivho  call  thee  happy,  which  is  one  of  the 
meanings  of  the  Hebrew  word,  and  was  perhaps  designed  to  be  suggested 
here,  but  not  directly  as  the  primary  idea.  The  paronomasia  introduced 
into  the  last  clause  by  Cocceius  (qui  ducunt  te  seducunt  te),  the  Dutch 
version  (die  u  leyden  verleyden  u),  and  Gesenius  (deine  Fiihrer  verfiihren 
dich),  is  not  found  in  the  original. 

13.  Though  human  governments  might  be  overthrown,  God  still  re- 
mained a  sovereign  and  a  judge,  and  is  here  represented  as  appearing,  coming 
forward,  or  assuming  his  position,  not  onl}^  as  a  judge  but  as  an  advocate, 
or  rather  an  accuser,  in  both  which  characters  he  acts  at  once,  implying 
that  he  who  brings  this  charge  against  his  people  has  at  the  same  time 
power  to  condemn.  Jehovah  standeth  up  to  plead,  and  is  standing  to  judge 
the  nations.  The  first  verb  properly  denotes  a  reflexive  act,  viz.  that  of 
placing  or  presenting  himself.  The  participle  is  used  to  represent  the 
scene  as  actually  passing.  The  meaning  of  2^1  is  to  plead  or  conduct  a 
cause  for  another  or  one's  self. — Some  understand  the  last  clause  to  mean 
that  the  judge  is  still  standing,  that  he  has  not  yet  taken  his  place  upon  the 


lie  ISAIAH  III.  [Ver.  14-17. 

judgment-seat.  According  to  Clericus,  it  represents  the  case  as  so  clear 
that  the  judge  decides  it  standing,  without  sitting  down  to  hear  argument  or 
evidence.  But  these  arc  needless  and  unnatural  refinements. — Yitringa 
makes  S''"?  and  T"?  synonymous, '.which  is  contrary  to  usage.  Nations  here, 
as  often  elsewhere,  means  the  trihes  of  Israel.  See  Gen.  xlix.  10  ;  Dcut. 
xxxii.  8 ;  xxxiii.  3,  19 ;  1  Ivings  xxii.  28  ;  Mich.  i.  2.  There  is  no  need 
therefore  of  reading  i^y  for  Q^^^y,  as  Lowth  docs. 

14.  This  verse  describes  the  parties  more  distinctly,  and  begins  the 
accusation.  Jehovah  tcill  enter  into  jmhjment  (engage  in  litigation,  both  as 
a  party  and  a  judge)  uith  the  elders  of  his  j)eople  (the  heads  of  houses, 
families  and  tribes)  and  the  chiefs  thereof  (the  hereditary  chiefs  of  Israel, 
here  and  elsewhere  treated  as  responsible  representatives  of  the  people). 
And  ye  (even  ye)  hare  consumed  the  vineijard  (of  Jehovah,  his  church  or 
chosen  people),  the  spoil  of  the  poor  (that  which  is  taken  from  him  by  vio- 
lence) is  in  your  houses. — Hendewerk  regards  the  last  clause  as  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Prophet,  giving  a  reason  w^hy  God  would  enter  into  judgment 
with  them  ;  but  it  is  commonly  regarded  as  the  commencement  of  the  judge's 
own  address,  which  is  continued  through  the  following  verse. — The  particle 
with  which  the  second  clause  begins  is  not  equivalent  to  for  (Yulg.  Lu.)  or 
but  (Cocc),  but  connects  what  follows  with  an  antecedent  thought  not  ex- 
pressed. It  may  here  be  rendered  even,  and  so,  or  so  then  (Ges.).  Lowth 
has  as  for  you,  and  the  pronoun  is  certainly  emphatic,  you  from  whom  it 
could  least  have  been  expected,  you  who  ought  to  have  prevented  it. — Hen- 
derson thinks  that  vineyard  is  here  used  collectively  for  vineyards,  and  that 
literal  spoliation  of  the  poor  is  the  particular  ofl'ence  denounced,  or  one  here 
chosen  to  represent  the  rest.  But  the  common  opinion  is  more  probable, 
viz,  that  the  Prophet  here  uses  the  same  metaphor  which  forms  the  basis  of 
his  parable  in  chap  v. — The  proper  meaning  of  ^^VH  is  the  afflicted  from 
whatever  cause  ;  but  it  is  commonly  applied  to  the  poor.  Ewald  translates 
rigidly  the  sufferer's  spoil  (des  Dulders  Raub.) 

15.  The  Lord's  address  to  the  elders  of  Israel  is  continued  in  a  tone  of 
indignant  expostulation.  What  mean  ye  (literally  uliat  is  to  you,  equivalent 
in  English  to  what  have  you,  i.  e.  what  right,  what  reason,  what  motive, 
what  advantage)  that  ye  crush  my  people  (a  common  figure  for  severe 
oppression,  Job  v.  4,  Prov.  xxii.  22),  and  yrind  the  faces  of  the  poor  (upon 
the  grouiid,  by  trampling  on  their  bodies,  another  strong  figm-e  for  contemp- 
tuous and  oppressive  violence),  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah  of  Hosts  (which  is 
added  to  remind  the  accused  of  the  sovereign  authority,  omniscience,  and 
omnipotence  of  Him  by  whom  the  charge  is  brought  against  them). — The 
first  verb  does  not  mean  merely  to  weaken  (Cocc),  bruise  (Calv.),  or  break 
(Vitr.),  but  to  break  in  pieces,  to  break  utterly,  to  crush  (Lowth). — By  the 

faces  of  the  poor  some  understand  their  ])ersons,  or  the  poor  themselves,  and 
by  grindinrj  them,  reducing,  attenuating,  by  exaction  and  oppression  (Ges. 
Hg.  Hk.  Hn.)  Others  refer  the  phrase  to  litem  1  injuries  of  the  face  by 
blows  or  wounds  (Ew.  Um.)  But  the  simplest  and  most  natural  interpreta- 
tion is  that  which  applies  it  to  the  act  of  grinding  the  face  upon  the  ground 
by  trampling  on  the  body,  thus  giving  both  tbc  noun  and  verb  their  proper 
meaning,  and  making  the  parallelism  more  exact. — The  phrase  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  verse  cannot  constitute  an  independent  clause,  ivhat  mean  ye  ? 
(Barnes),  but  merely  serves  to  introduce  the  question. 

16.  17.  The  Prophet  here  resumes  the  thread  which  had  been  dropped 
or  broken  at  the  close  of  ver.  12,  and  recurs  to  the  undue  predominance  of 
female  influence,  but  [particularly  to  the  prevalent  excess  of  female  luxury, 


Yer.  18.J  ISAIAH  III.  117 

not  only  as  sinful  in  itself,  but  as  a  chief  cause  of  the  violence  and  social 
disorder  previously  mentioned,  and  therefore  to  be  punished  by  disease, 
widowhood,  and  shameful  exposure.  These  two  verses,  like  the  sixth  and 
seventh,  form  one  continued  sentence,  the  and  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  17 
introducing  the  apodosis,  for  which  reason,  and  also  on  account  of  its  rela- 
tion to  because  in  ver.  16,  its  full  force  cannot  be  expressed  by  a  literal 
translation.  And  Jehovah  said  (in  addition  to  what  goes  before,  as  if  begin- 
ning a  new  section  of  the  prophecy),  because  the  daxujhters  of  Zion  (the 
women  of  Jerusalem,  with  special  reference  to  those  connected  with  the 
leading  men)  are  lofty  (in  their  mien  and  carriage)  and  ivalk  with  out- 
stretched neck  (literally,  stretched  of  neck,  so  as  to  seem  taller),  and  gazing 
(ogling,  leering,  looking  wantonly)  idth  their  eyes,  and  ivith  a  tripping  walk 
they  walk,  and  xoith  their  feet  they  make  a  tinkling  (^.  e.  with  the  metallic 
rings  or  bands  worn  around  their  ankles),  therefore  the  Lord  will  make  bald 
the  crown  of  the  daughters  of  Zion,  and  their  nakedness  Jehovah  will  uncover 
{i.  e.  he  will  reduce  them  to  a  state  the  very  opposite  of  their  present  pride 
and  finery). — Jerome  speaks  of  men  who  understood  the  daughters  of  Zion 
here  to  mean  the  souls  of  men.  Eichhorn  takes  it  in  the  geographical  sense 
of  smaller  towns  dependent  on  Jerusalem  (Josh.  xv.  45,  47,  2  Chron,  xviii. 
18).  But  the  obvious  meaning  is  preferred  by  almost  all  interpreters. — 
They  are  described  as  stretching  out  the  neck,  not  by  bending  forwards,  nor 
by  tossing  the  head  backwards  (Hn.),  but  by  holding  it  high  (Sept.  u-vj/jj/icT 
riayffKuS),  so  that  the  phrase  corresponds  iolofty'vix  the  clause  preceding. — 
Above  forty  editions  and  eight  manuscripts  read  nnipt^^p,  deceiving,  i.  e.  by 
a  false  expression  of  the  eyes  (Cocc.  mentientes  oculis),  or  by  disguising 
them  with  paint  (Lowth),  in  allusion  to  the  very  ancient  fashion  (2  Kings 
ix.  30)  oculos  circumducto  nigrore  fucare  (Cyprian  de  Hab.  Virg.).  This 
last  sense  may  be  put  upon  the  common  reading  by  deriving  it  from  "V^  i.  q. 
Chald.  IPP,  to  stain  or  dye,  which  may  be  the  ground  of  Luther's  version, 
with  painted  faces.  It  is  commonly  agreed,  however,  that  it  comes  from 
the  same  verb  in  the  sense  of  looking,  looking  around,  with  the  accessory 
idea  here  suggested  by  the  context  of  immodest,  wanton  looks.  This  idea 
is  expressed  by  the  Septuagint  (Ic  vivfjuamv  6pdaX/j,uv),  the  Vulgate  (vagantes 
oculis),  Gesenius  (frech  die  Augen  werfend),  Ewald  (schielender  Augen), 
and  Henderson  (ogling  eyes). — The  masculine  suftix  in  Dp  v^!i  is  regarded 
by  Henderson  and  Knobel  as  containing  an  allusion  to  the  unfeminine  con- 
duct of  these  women ;  but  the  manner  here  described  is  rather  childish  than 
masculine,  and  this  form  is  probably  used  as  the  primary  one  and  originally 
common  to  both  genders.  (See  Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  119,  1.) — The  baldness 
mentioned  in  the  last  clause  is  variously  explained  as  an  allusion  to  the 
shaving  of  the  heads  of  prisoners  or  captives  (Knobel),  or  as  a  sign  of 
mourning  (Bosenmiiller),  or  as  the  effect  of  disease  (Ges.  Ew.  &c.),  and  par- 
ticularly of  the  disease  which  bears  a  name  (Lev,  xiii.  2)  derived  from  the 
verb  here  used  (Jun.  Cocc.  E.  V.).  Neither  of  these  ideas  is  expressed 
though  all  may  be  implied,  in  the  terms  of  the  original.  For  the  con- 
struction of  ^'TPn  FiiDtDI,  see  Gesen.  Heb.  Gr.  §  126,  3.  For  that  of  nr^D^ 
11"l3  vide  supra,  chap.  i.  4. 

18.  Although  the  prediction  in  v.  17  implies  the  loss  of  all  ornaments 
whatever,  we  have  now  a  minute  specification  of  the  things  to  be  taken  away. 
This  specification  had  a  double  use  ;  it  made  the  judgment  threatened  more 
explicit  and  significant  to  those  whom  it  concerned,  while  to  others  it  gave 
some  idea  of  the  length  to  which  extravagance  in  dress  was  carried.  There 
is  no  need  (as  Ewald  well  observes)  of  supposing  that  all  these  articles  were 


118  IS  AT  All  III.  [Ver.  19-21. 

ever  worn  at  once,  or  that  the  passage  was  designed  to  be  descriptive  of  a 
complete  dress.  It  is  rather  an  enumeration  of  detached  particulars  which 
might  or  might  not  be  combined  in  any  individual  case.  As  in  other  cases 
where  a  variety  of  detached  particulars  are  enumerated  simply  by  their  names, 
it  is  now  very  difficult  to  identify  some  of  them.  This  is  the  less  to  be  re- 
gretted, as  the  main  design  of  the  enumeration  was  to  shew  the  prevalent 
extravagance  in  dress,  an  effect  not  wholly  dependent  on  an  exact  interpre- 
tation of  the  several  items.  The  interest  of  the  passage,  in  its  details,  is 
not  exegetical,  but  archaeological,  in  which  light  it  has  been  separately  and 
elaborately  discussed  by  learned  writers,  especially  by  Schroeder  in  his  Com- 
mentarius  philologico-criticus  de  vestitu  mulierum  Hebrsearam  ad  Jesai. 
iii.  ver.  16-24,  cum  prajfatione  Alberti  Schultens,  Lugd.  Bat.  1745.  Of 
later  date,  but  less  authority,  in  Hartmann's  Hebriierinn  am  Putztische  und 
als  Braut.  Nothing  more  will  be  here  attempted  than  to  give  what  is  now 
most  commonly  regarded  as  the  true  meaning  of  the  terms,  with  a  few  of 
the  more  important  variations  in  the  doubtful  cases.  In  that  daij  (the  time 
appointed  for  the  judgments  just  denounced)  the  Lord  uill  take  awn/  (liter- 
ally cause  to  depart,  from  the  daughters  of  Zion)  the  brareri/  (in  the  old 
.English  sense  of  finery)  of  the  ankle-bands  (the  noun  from  which  the  last 
verb  in  ver.  16  is  derived)  and  the  cauls  (or  caps  of  net-work)  and  the  cres- 
cents (or  little  moons,  metallic  ornaments  of  that  shape). — Schroeder  explains 
D^p''?^  to  mean  little  suns,  corresponding  to  the  little  moons  which  follow, 
and  derives  the  word  as  a  diminutive  from  ^^'^  with  a  permutation  of  one 
labial  for  another.  This  explanation  is  adopted  by  Winer,  Ewald,  and 
Knobel.  According  to  Henderson,  the  word  means  tassellcd  tresses,  i.  e. 
locks  of  hair  braided  and  hanging  to  the  feet. 

19.  The  pendants  (literally  drops,  i.  e.  ear-rings)  and  the  bracelets  (for 
the  arm,  or  according  to  Ewald,  collars  for  the  neck,  Halsbande)  ami  the 
veils  (the  word  here  used  denoting  the  peculiar  oriental  veil,  composed  of 
two  pieces  hooked  together  below  the  eyes,  one  of  which  pieces  is  thrown 
back  over  the  head,  while  the  other  hides  the  face).  The  first  word  in  the 
verse  is  rendered  by  the  English  Version,  chains,  and  in  the  margin,  sueet- 
balls,  but  more  correctly  by  the  Septuagint,  KaOs/xa  or  pendant. 

20.  The  caps  (or  other  ornamental  head-dresses)  and  the  ankle-chains 
(connecting  the  ankle -bands,  so  as  to  regulate  the  strength  of  the  step)  and 
the  ffirdles,  and  the  houses  (i.  e.  places  or  receptacles)  of  breadth,  (meaning 
probably  the  perfume-boxes  or  smelling-bottles  worn  by  the  oriental  women 
at  their  girdles)  and  the  amulets  (the  same  word  used  above  in  ver.  3,  in  the 
sense  of  incantations,  but  which  seems  like  the  \j^im  fascinum  to  have  also 
signified  the  antidote).  The  first  word  of  this  verse  is  now  commonly  ex- 
plained to  mean  turbans,  but  as  these  are  distinctly  mentioned  afterwards, 
this  tenn  may  denote  an  ornamental  cap,  or  perhaps  a  diadem  or  circlet  of 
gold  or  silver.  (Ewald,  Kronen,  Eng.  Vs.  bonnets.)  The  next  word  is 
explained  to  mean  bracelets  by  the  Septuagint  {■^Wy.ia)  and  Ewald  {Arm- 
span  ffen),  but  by  the  English  Version  more  correctly,  though  perhaps  too 
vaguely,  ornaments  of  the  le//.  For  ffirdles,  sincllini/-botlles,  and  amulets,  the 
English  Version  has  head-bands,  tablets  (but  in  the  margin,  houses  of  the 
soul),  and  ear-rinys,  perhaps  on  account  of  the  superstitious  use  which  was 
sometimes  made  of  these  (Gen.  xxxv.  4). 

21.  The  rinf/s,  strictly  signet-rings,  but  here  put  for  finger-ringa,  or  rings 
in  general,  and  the  nose-javels,  a  common  and  veiy  ancient  ornament  in 
eastern  countries,  so  that  the  \ers\or\,  jewels  of  the  face,  is  unnecessary,  as 
well  as  inconsistent  with  the  derivation  from  D!?,  to  perforate. 


.  Ver.  22-24.]  ISAIAH  III.  119 

22.  IVie  holidai)  dresses,  and  the  mantles  and  the  robes  and  the  purses. 
The  first  word  is  from  f^n  to  pull  off,  and  is  almost  universally  explained 
to  mean  clothes  that  are  taken  off  and  laid  aside,  i.  e.  the  best  suit,  holiday 
or  gala  dresses,  although  this  general  expression  seems  misplaced  in  an 
enumeration  of  minute  details.  The  EngUsh  version,  changeable  suits  of 
apparel,  though  ambiguous,  seems  intended  to  express  the  same  idea.  The 
next  two  words,  according  to  their  etymology,  denote  wide  and  flowing  upper 
garments.  The  English  version  of  the  last  word,  crisping-pins,  supposes  it 
to  relate  to  the  dressing  of  the  hair.  The  same  idea  seems  to  be  expressed 
by  Calvin  (acus)  and  Cocceius  (acus  discriminales.)  The  word  is  now 
commonly  explained,  from  the  Arabic  analogy,  to  signify  bags  or  purseS 
probably  of  metal. 

23.  The  mirrors  and  the  tunics  (inner  garments  made  of  linen),  and  the 
turbans  (the  common  oriental  head-dress,  from  H^V  to  wrap)  and  the  veils. 
— The  first  word  is  explained  to  mean  their  thin  transparent  dresses,  by 
the  Septuagint  [dia(pav7^  Xa-A-wr/.d),  Kimchi,  Schroeder,  Rosenmiiller  and 
Ewald  (der  feinen  Zeuge)  ;  but  most  writers  understand  it  to  denote  the 
small  metalic  mirrors  carried  about  by  oriental  women.  Instead  of  turbans 
(Eng.  Vs.  hoods)  Henderson  supposes  niD^JV  to  denote  ribands  used  for 
binding  the  hair  or  fastening  the  tiara.  The  same  writer  explains  the  veil 
here  spoken  of  to  be  the  large  veil  covering  all  the  other  garments,  and 
therein  differing  from  the  small  veil  mentioned  in  ver.  19.  The  same  ex- 
planation is  given  by  Kuobel  (Ueberwiirfe)  ;  but  other  writers  make  an 
opposite  distinction. 

24.  The  threatening  is  still  continued,  but  with  a  change  of  form,  the 
things  to  be  taken  away  being  now  contrasted  with  those  which  should  suc- 
ceed them.  A)id  it  shall  be  or  happen  (equivalent  in  force  to  then,  after  all 
this)  that  instead  of  perfume  (aromatic  odour  or  the  spices  which  afford  it) 
there  shall  be  stench,  and  instead  of  a  girdle  a  rope,  and  instead,  of  braided 
u-ork  baldness  (or  loss  of  hair  by  disease  or  shaving,  as  a  sign  of  captivity 
or  mourning),  and  instead  of  a  full  rope  a  girding  of  sackcloth,  burning  in- 
stead of  beauty.  The  inversion  of  the  terms  in  this  last  clause,  and  its 
brevity,  add  greatly  to  the  strength  of  the  expression. — Several  of  the  ancient 
versions  render  p??  by  dust  (Sept.  Arab.  Syr.),  but  it  strictly  denotes  disso- 
lution, putrefaction,  and  is  here  used  as  the  opposite  of  D?f2,  viz.,  stench, 
not  specifically  that  of  corpses,  wounds,  or  the  disease  supposed  to  be  re- 
ferred to  in  ver.  17  (Ros.  Ges.  Hg.  Hk.  Ew.),  but  stench  in  general,  or  per- 
haps with  particular  allusion  to  the  squalor  of  captivity  or  mourning. — nsj^^  ig 
explained  to  mean  a  rent,  rent  garment,  rag  or  rags,  as  signs  of  poverty  or 
grief,  by  Calvin  (laceratio),  Cocceius  (lacerum),  Lowth  (rags),  and  Ivnobel 
(ein  Fetzen).  But  the  meaning  cord  or  rope,  given  in  the  Septuagint  [ayjivitx) 
t,dj(!r)  and  Vulgate  (pro  zono  funiculus),  is  adopted  by  Clericus  (funis), 
Gesenius  (einen  Strick),  and  most  modern  writers. — The  Septuagint  ex- 
plains ^^'v^f^  to  mean  a  golden  ornament  of  the  head  ;  Vitringa  a  solid  orna- 
ment of  gold,  perhaps  from  HEi'p,  hard.  It  is  now  explained,  from  an  Arabic 
meaning  of  the  same  root,  to  denote  turned  u-ork,  or  a  shape  produced  by 
turning.  (See  Gesen.  s.  v.)  The  cognate  H^f'pp  is  applied  to  ornamental 
work  in  wood  or  metal,  but  this,  perhaps,  in  derision,  to  the  laborious  braid- 
ing of  the  hair,  as  appears  from  its  being  in  antithesis  to  baldness. — Ewald 
reads  ?*vl  ^ri3  as  two  words  meaning  the  fulness  or  widenes^  (from  i^O?;  to 
open)  of  an  ample  robe  (from  '?"'5  to  revolve  or  flow  around),  contrasted  with 
a  tight  girding  of  sackcloth.  Gesenius  makes  the  sense  the  same,  but  re- 
gards   /'A'T^fi  as  a  compound  word  denoting  the  full  robe  itself.     The  Eng- 


120  ISAIAH  III.  [Ver.  25,  26. 

lish  version  (stomacher)  supposes  it  to  be  a  particular  ornamental  part  of 
dress. — The  ancient  versions  take  ^3  as  a  conjunction,  and  connect  the  last 
clause  with  the  next  verse,  "  for  instead  of  beauty,  thy  men,"  &c.  (Sept. 
Vulg.),  or  make  it  an  independent  clause,  by  treating  rinn  as  a  verb  (Targ. 
Pesh.)  ;  but  all  the  modern  writers  are  agreed  in  making  ^3  a  noun,  from 
n^3,  to  bum,  like  "'fc*  *V,  from  HJN  n)^.  The  buntinrj  mentioned  is  supposed 
to  be  that  of  the  skin  from  long  exposure,  by  the  French  version  (au  lieu 
du  beau  teint  le  hale),  Clericus  (adusta  facies),  and  Lowth  (a  sun-burnt 
skin).  But  most  interpreters  understand  by  it  a  brand,  here  mentioned 
either  as  a  stigma  of  captivitj',  or  as  a  self-inflicted  sign  of  mourning. 
Hitzig  gives  the  noun  the  general  sense  of  tcoinid  or  7)iark ;  but  this  is  un- 
authorized, and  weakens  the  expression.  Sackcloth  is  mentioned  as  the 
coarsest  kind  of  cloth,  and  also  as  that  usually  worn  by  mourners.  The  two 
nouns  n"^yp  and  n^^'pp  are  in  opposition,  the  first  denoting  artificial  adjust- 
ment, the  second  its  precise  form. 

25.  The  prophet  now  assigns  as  a  re.ason  for  the  grief  predicted  in  ver. 
24,  a  general  slaughter  of  the  male  population,  the  eti'ect  of  which  is  again 
described  in  ver.  26,  and  its  extent  in  chap.  iv.  1,  which  belongs  more 
directly  to  this  chapter  than  the  next.  In  the  verse  before  us,  he  first  ad- 
dresses Zion  or  Jerusalem  directly,  but  again,  as  it  were,  turns  away,  and 
in  the  next  verse  speaks  of  her  in  the  third  person.  Thii  men  by  the  sword 
shall  fall,  and  thy  strcn/jth  in  war. — '^I'DP  does  not  mean  //(//  common  peofile, 
as  opposed  to  warriors  or  soldiers  of  distinction  (Luther  :  dein  Pnbel)  ;  nor 
does  it  simply  mean  thi/  people  or  inhabitants  (Cocc.  homines  tui ;  Fr.  Vs. 
tes  gens  ;  Lowth,  thy  people) ;  but  thi/  men,  i.  e.  thy  males  (Vulg.  viri  tui. 
Ges.  deine  Manner). — The  present  form  used  by  Gesenius  greatly  detracts 
from  the  minatory  force  of  the  future,  which  is  retained  by  Hitzig,  De 
Wette,  Hendewerk,  Ewald,  Umbreit.  The  abstract  strength  is  resolved 
into  a  concrete  by  the  Septuagint  {layjjovrn;),  Vulgate,  Luther,  Lowth,  and 
Gesenius  ;  but  it  is  better  to  retain  the  original  expression,  not  in  the 
military  sense  of  forces  (Hg.  Hn.),  but  as  denoting  that  which  constitutes 
the  strength  of  a  community,  its  male  population  (Calv.  robur  tuum  ;  Fr. 
Vs.  ta  force;  Ewald,  deine  Mannschaft). 

26.  The  effect  of  this  slaughter  on  the  community  is  here  described, 
first  by  representing  the  places  of  chief  concourse  as  vocal  with  distress, 
and  then  by  personifying  the  state  or  nation  as  a  desolate  widow  seated  on 
the  groimd,  a  sign  both  of  mourning  and  of  degradation.  And  her  gates 
(those  of  Zion  or  Jerusalem)  *7(rt/^  lament  and  mourn,  and  being  emptied  (or 
exhausted)  she  shall  sit  upon  the  ground.  The  gates  are  said  to  mourn,  by 
a  rhetorical  substitution  of  the  place  of  action  for  the  agent  (Hendewerk), 
or  because  a  place  filled  with  cries  seems  itself  to  utter  them  (Knobel). 
The  meaning  of  nri|53  (which  may  be  either  the  preterite  or  participle 
passive  of  Hj^J  is  taken  in  its  proper  sense  of  emptied  or  exhausted  by  Junius 
(expurgata),  Vitringa  (evacuata),  and  Ewald  (ausgeleert).  This  is  ex- 
plained to  mean  emptied  of  her  strength,  i.e.  weakened  by  Hendewerk 
(entkraftet),  emptied  of  her  people,  i.e.  solitary,  desolate,  by  the  Vulgate 
(dcsolata),  the  Enghsh  version  (desolate),  Gesenius  (vcriidet),  Hitzig  (ein- 
Bam),  &c.  The  reference  of  this  word  to  her  former  condition  seems  pecu- 
liar to  Clericus  (quae  munda  erat).  She  is  described  not  as  lying  (Calv. 
Clcr.),  but  sitting  on  the  ground,  as  on  one  of  Vespasian's  coins  a  woman 
is  represented,  in  a  sitting  posture,  leaning  against  a  palm-tree,  with  the 
legend,  Judaa  Capta. 

Chap.  iv.  ver.  1.     The  paucity  of  males  in  the  community,  resulting 


Ver.  l.j  ISAIAH  IV.  .  121 

from  this  general  slaughter,  is  now  expressed  by  a  lively  figure  represent- 
ing seven  women  as  earnestly  soliciting  one  man  in  marriage,  and  that  on 
the  most  disadvantageous  terms,  renouncing  the  support  to  which  they 
were  by  law  entitled.  And  in  that  dayjihen,  after  the  judgments  just  pre- 
dicted) seven  women  (i.  e.  several,  this  number  being  often  used  indefinitely) 
shall  laif  hold  on  one  man  (earnestly  accost  him),  sai/lng,  WeivUleat  our  own 
bread,  and  wear  our  oxen  apparel ;  onh/  let  thy  name  he  called  upon  us  (an 
idiomatic  phrase  meaning  let  us  be  called  by  thy  name,  let  us  be  recog- 
nised as  thine),  take  thou  away  our  reproach,  the  "  reproach  of  widowhood  " 
(Isa.  liv.  -J:),  or  celibacy,  or  rather  that  of  childlessness,  which  they  imply, 
and  which  was  regarded  with  particular  aversion  by  the  Jews  before  the 
time  of  Christ. — This  verse  appears  to  have  been  severed  from  its  natural 
connection  in  accordance  with  an  ancieut  notion  that  the  one  man  was 
Christ,  and  the  seven  women  souls  believing  on  him.  This  view  of  the 
passage  may  indeed  have  been  either  the  cause  or  the  eflect  of  the  usual 
division  and  arrangement  of  the  text.  Some  writers  think  that  the  Prophet 
intended  to  present  an  accumulation  of  strange  things,  in  order  to  shew  the 
changed  condition  of  the  people ;  w^omen  forsaldng  their  natural  modesty, 
soliciting  marriage,  with  violent  importunity,  in  undue  proportion,  and  on 
the  most  disadvantageous  terms.  But  the  more  probable  opinion  is  the 
common  one,  that  he  simply  meant  to  set  forth  by  a  lively  figure,  the  dis- 
proportion between  the  sexes  introduced  by  a  destructive  war.  Instead  of 
our  own  bread,  our  oivn  clothes,  Cocceius  would  simply  read  our  bread,  our 
clothes,  and  understand  the  clause  as  a  promise  of  domestic  diligence.  The 
common  interpretation  agrees  better  with  the  other_  circumstances  and  ex- 
pressions of  the  verse  and  context.  Luther  gives  ^D.^  a  subjunctive  form, 
that  our  reproach  may  be  taken  from  us.  The  English  version  and  Hender- 
son make  it  an  infinitive,  to  take  away  ;  Barnes  a  participle,  takiny  away  ; 
but  the  imperative  construction,  which  is  given  in  the  margin  of  the 
English  Bible,  and  preferred  by  almost  all  translators,  ancient  and  modern, 
agrees  best  with  the  absence  of  a  preposition,  and  adds  to  the  vivacity  of 
the  address.  To  this  verse  Calvin  cites  a  beautiful  parallel  from  Lucan, 
which  is  copied  by  Grotius,  and  credited  to  him  by  later  writers — 

Da  tantum  nomen  inane 
Connubii ;  liceat  tumulo  scripsisse  Catonis  , 

Makcia. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Besides  the  first  verse,  which  has  been  explained  already,  this  chapter 
contains  a  prophecy  of  Christ  and  of  the  future  condition  of  the  Church 
The  Prophet  here  recurs  to  the  theme  with  w^hich  the  prophecy  opened 
(chap.  ii.  1-4),  bnt  with  this  distinction,  that  instead  of  dwelling  on  the  in- 
fluence exerted  by  the  church  upon  the  world,  he  here  exhibits  its  internal 
condition  under  the  reign  of  the  Messiah. 

He  first  presents  to  view  the  person  by  whose  agency  the  church  is  to 
be  brought  into  a  glorious  and  happy  state,  and  who  is  here  described  as  a 
partaker  both  of  the  divine  and  human  nature,  ver.  2.  He  then  describes 
the  character  of  those  who  are  predestined  to  share  in  the  promised  exalta- 
tion,"ver.  3.  He  then  shews  the  necessity,  implied  in  these  promises,  of 
previous  purgation  from  the  defilement  described  in  the  foregoing  chapters, 
ver.  4.     When  this  purgation  is  efiected,  Gg^  will  manifest  his  presence 


122  ISAIAH  IV.  [Ver.  2. 

gloriously  throughout  his  church,  vcr.  5.  To  those  promise^  of  purity  and 
honour  ho  now  adds  one  of  protection  and  security,  with  which  the  prophecy 
concludes,  vcr.  6. 

It  is  commonly  agreed  that  this  prediction  has  been  only  partially  ful- 
filled, and  that  its  complete  fulfilment  is  to  be  expected,  not  in  the  literal 
mount  Zion  or  Jerusalem,  but  in  those  various  assemblies  or  societies  of 
true  believers,  which  now  possess  in  common  the  privileges  once  exclusively 
enjoyed  by  the  Holy  City  and  the  chosen  race  of  which  it  was  the  centre 
and  metropolis. 

2,  At  this  point  the  Prophet  passes  from  the  tone  of  threatening  to  that 
of  promise.  Having  foretold  a  general  destruction,  he  now  intimates  that 
some  should  escape  it,  and  be  rendered  glorious  and  happy  by  the  presence 
and  favour  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  is  at  the  same  time  the  Son  of  man. 
In  that  day  (after  this  destruction)  shall  the  Branch  (or  Offspring)  of  Jehovah 
be  for  honour  and  for  glory,  and  the  fruit  of  the  earth  for  sublimity  and 
beauty,  to  the  escaped  of  Israel,  literally  the  escape  or  deliverance  of  Israel, 
the  abstract  being  used  for  the  xjolloctive  concrete,  meaning  those  w-ho 
should  survive  these  judgments. — ?  H^n*  may  be  taken  either  in  the  sense  of 
beiny  for,  serving  as,  or  in  that  oi  becoming,  as  in  chap.  i.  14,  21,  22,  31. — 
As  np>k,  in  its  physical  and  jiroper  sense,  means  growth,  vegetation,  or  that 
which  gi'ows  and  vegetates  (Gen.  xix,  25;  Ps.  Ixv.  11;  Hosea  viii.  7; 
Ezek.  xvi.  7),  it  is  here  explained  by  Hitzig,  Maurer,  and  Ewald,  as 
synonymous  wiih  fruit  of  the  earth,  but  in  its  lowest  sense,  that  of  vegetable 
products  or  abundant  harvests.  To  this  interpretation,  which  is  adopted 
by  Gesenius  in  his  Thesaurus,  it  may  be  objected,  first,  that  such  a  subject 
is  wholly  incongruous  with  the  predicates  applied  to  it,  honourable,  glori- 
ous, sublime,  and  beautiful ;  secondly,  that  this  explanation  of  nD>*  is  pre- 
cluded by  the  addition  of  the  name  Jehovah,  a  difficulty  aggravated  by  the 
parallelism,  which  requires  the  relation  between  branch  and  Jehovah  to  be 
the  same  as  that  hetween  fruit  and  earth,  and  as  the  last  phrase  means  the 
oflspring  of  the  earth,  so  the  first  must  mean  the  offspring  of  Jehovah,  an 
expression  which  can  only  be  applied  to  persons.  This  last  objection 
applies  also  to  the  explanation  of  the  phrase  as  meaning  spiritual  gifts  in 
opposition  to  temporal  or  earthly  gifts  (Calv.  Jun.  Schleusner).  It  does  not 
lie  against  that  proposed  by  Grotius,  and  adopted  by  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
Koppe,  and  Eichhorn,  by  Gesenius  in  his  Commentary,  and  more  recently 
by  Knobel,  which  applies  the  phrase  to  the  better  race  of  Israelites  who  were 
to  spring  up  after  the  return  from  exile.  But  although  the  sense  thus  put 
upon  the  word  is  personal,  it  is  not  individual,  as  in  every  other  case  where 
n'PV  is  used  figuratively  elsewhere,  but  collective.  Another  objection  to  it  is, 
that  this  better  race  of  Israelites  are  the  very  persons  hero  called  the  escaped 
of  Israel,  who  would  then  be  described  as  a  beauty  and  a  glory  to  them- 
selves. Ivuobel  evades  this  objection  by  denying  that  the  last  words  of  the 
verse  have  any  connection  with  the  first  clause ;  but  his  evasion  is  nn  arbi- 
trary one,  suggested  by  the  difficulty  which  attends  his  doctrine. — The  first 
of  these  objections  applies  also  to  Hendewcrk's  interpretation  of  the  phrase 
as  meaning  the  government  or  administration  (das  regiorcndc  Personale 
des  Staates). — The  usage  of  the  Hebrew  word  in  application  to  an  indivi- 
dual will  be  clear  from  the  following  examples.  "  I3chold  the  days  come, 
saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  righteous  branch,  and  a  king 
shall  reign  and  prosper"  (Jer.  xxiii.  5).  "  In  those  days  and  at  that  time 
will  I  cause  the  branch  of  righteousness  to  grow  up  unto  David,  and  ho 
shall  execute  judgment  "  (Jer.  xxxiii.  15).     "Behold  I  will  bring  forth  my 


Ver.  3,  4.]  ISAIAH  IV.  123 

servant  the  Branch  "  (Zecb.  iii.  8).  "Behold  the  man  whose  name  is  the 
BRANCH  "  (Zech.  vi.  12).  The  Branch  is  here  represented  as  a  man,  a  king,  ^ 
a  righteous  judge,  a  servant  of  God.  Hence  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude 
that  the  same  person,  whom  Jeremiah  calls  the  branch  (or  son)  of  David,  is 
called  by  Isaiah  in  the  verse  before  us  the  branch  (or  son)  of  Jehovah.  This 
view  of  the  passage  is  strongly  recommended  by  the  following  considera- 
tions. It  is  free  from  the  difficulties  which  attend  all  others.  It  is  the  • 
ancient  Jewish  interpretation  found  in  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase,  which  ex- 
plains the  Branch  of  Jehovah  as  meaning  his  Messiah,  CH  XfT'ti'O.)  The 
parallel  passages  already  quoted  are  referred  to  the  Messiah  even  by  Gese- 
nius,  who  only  hesitates  to  make  the  same  admission  here,  because  he 
thinks  the  parallel  phrase,  fruit  of  the  earth,  cannot  be  so  applied.  But  no 
expression  could  in  fact  be  more  appropriate,  whether  it  be  translated //-((j^ 
of  the  land  and  referred  to  his  Jewish  extraction  (Hengstenberg),  or  fruit 
of  the  earth  audi  reievred  to  his  human  nature  (Vitr.  Hn.).  On  the  latter 
supposition,  which  appears  more  probable,  the  parallel  terms  correspond 
exactly  to  the  two  parts  of  Paul's  description  (Rom.  i.  3,  4),  and  the  two 
titles  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  reference  to  Christ's  two  natures,  Son 
OF  God  and  Son  of  Man. 

3.  Having  foretold  the  happiness  and  honour  which  the  Son  of  God 
should  one  day  confer  upon  his  people,  the  Prophet  now  explains  to  whom 
the  promise  was  intended  to  apply.  In  the  preceding  verse  they  were 
described  by  theii'  condition  as  survivors  of  God's  desolating  judgments. 
In  this  they  are  described  by  their  moral  character,  and  by  their  eternal 
destination  to  this  character  and  that  which  follows  it.  And  it  shall  be,  hap- 
pen, come  to  pass,  that  the  left  in  Zion  and  the  spared  in  Jerusalem,  singular 
forms  with  a  collective  application,  shall  be  called  hohj,  literally  hohj  shall 
be  said  to  him,  i.  e.  this  name  shall  be  used  in  addressing  him,  or  rather  may 
be  used  with  truth,  implying  that  the  persons  so  called  should  be  what  they 
seem  to  be  every  one  iiritlen,  enrolled,  ordained,  to  life  in  Jerusalem. — The 
omission  of  H^O}  (Lu.  Ges.  De  AV.  Ew.  Hn.)  is  a  needless  departure  from 
the  idiomatic  form  of  the  original.  The  expression  may  be  paraphrased, 
ayid  this  shall  he  the  consequence,  or  this  shall  follow,  preparing  the  mind  for 
an  event  of  moment.  As  C^n  may  be  either  a  plural  adjective  or  abstract 
noun,  some  understand  the  phrase  to  mean  enrolled  among  the  living  (Lu. 
Calv.  Cler.  E.  V.  Low.  Bar.),  others  enrolled  to  life  (Jun.  Cocc.  Yitr.  J.  H.  '^ 
Mich.  J.  D.  Mich.  Ges.  Hg.  De  W.  Ew.  Um.  Hn.).  In  either  case  the 
figure  denotes  not  simply  actual  life,  but  destination  to  it.  For  the  origin 
and  usage  of  the  figure  itself,  see  Exod.  xxx.  12  ;  Num.  i.  18  ;  Ezek. 
xiii.  9  :  Phil.  iv.  3 ;  Rev.  iii.  5. 

4.  This  verse  contains  a  previous  condition  of  the  promise  in  ver.  3, 
which  could  not  be  fulfilled  until  the  church  was  purged  from  the  pollution 
brought  upon  it  by  the  sins  of  those  luxurious  women  and  of  the  people 
generally,  a  work  which  could  be  efiected  only  by  the  convincing  and 
avenging  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  construction  is  continued  from 
the  verse  preceding.  All  this  shall  come  to  pass,  //(provided  that,  on  this 
condition,  which  idea  may  be  here  expressed  by  v'hen)  the  Lord  shall  have 
washed  awatj  (the  Hebrew  word  denoting  specially  the  washing  of  the  body, 
and  suggesting  the  idea  of  the  legal  ablutions)  the  filth  (a  very  strong  term, 
transferred  from  physical  to  moral  defilement)  of  the  daughters  of  Zion  (the 
women  before  mentioned),  and  the  blood  (literally  bloods,  i.  e.  bloodshGd  or 
blood-guiltiness)  of  Jerusalem  (/.  e.  of  the  people  in  general)  shcdl  purge  from 
its  midst  by  a  spirit  of  judgment  and  a  spirit  of  burning,  i.  e.  by  the  judgment 


124  ISAIAH  IV.  [Ver  5. 

and  burning  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  a  twofold  allusion  to  the  purifying  and 
destroying  energy  of  fire,  or  rather  to  its  purifying  by  destroying,  purging 
the  whole  by  the  destruction  of  a  part,  and  thereb}'  manifesting  the  divine 
jmtice  as  an  active  principle.  The  daiu/hters  of  Zlon  are  by  some  under- 
stood to  be  the  other  to\Mis  of  Judah  (Rosenmiiller,  Hengstenberg,  Um- 
breit),  the  objection  to  which  is  not  its  unpoetical  character  (Gesenius),  but 
its  disagreement  both  with  the  immediate  connection  and  with  the  use  of 
the  same  terms  in  chap.  iii.  16.  Others  understand  by  daughters  the  in- 
habitants in  general  (Sept.  sons  and  daughters),  or  the  female  inhabitants 
regarded  as  mothers  aucl  as  foiming  the  character  of  their  children  (Hende- 
werk).  But  it  is  natural  that  in  closing  his  prediction  the  Prophet  should 
recur  to  those  luxurious  women,  to  whose  influence  much  of  the  disorder 
and  oppression  which  prevailed  may  have  been  owing.  He  then  makes  a 
transition  from  particular  to  general  expressions.  The  idea  does  not  seem 
to  be,  the  uncleanness  of  the  women  and  the  blood-guiltiness  of  the  men 
(Hk.  Hn.),  or  the  uncleanness  and  blood-guiltiness  both  of  men  and  women 
(Ivn.),  but  the  uncleanness  of  the  women  and  the  blood-guiltiness  of  the 
people  generally. — nnj  does  not  mean  to  remove  (Cler.  Low.  Bs.),  nor  to 
drive  out  (Lu.  Um.),  nor  to  extirpate  (Ges.  Hg.  Hk.  Ew.),  nor  to  expiate 
(Calv,),  but  simply  to  wash  or  purge  out  (Sept.  Vulg.  Cocc.  E.  V.  Hn.), 
the  verb  being  specially  applied  to  the  washing  of  the  altar  and  sacrifices 
(2  Chron.  iv.  6  ;  Ezek,  xl.  38).  Two  of  these  senses  are  combined  by  J.  H. 
Michaelis  (lavando  ejecerit. — The  word  spirit  cannot  be  regarded  as  pleon- 
astic or  simply  emphatic  (Hn.)  without  aflbrding  licence  to  a  like  interpre- 
tation in  all  other  cases.  It  is  variously  explained  here  as  meaning  breath 
(Hg.  Um.),  uord  (Targ.  Jon.  P"!  NlfD^DD),  and  pouer  or  injluence  (Ges. 
Hengstenberg,  Bs.,  &c.).  But  since  this  is  the  term  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  designate  that  person  of  the  Godhead,  whom  the  Scriptures  uniformly 
represent  as  the  executor  of  the  divine  purposes,  and  since  this  sense  is 
perfectly  appropriate  here,  the  safest  and  most  satisfactory  interpretation  is 
'  that  which  understands  by  it  a  personal  spirit,  or  as  Luther  expresses  it, 
the  Spirit  who  shall  judge  and  burn.  Even  Ewald  adopts  the  same  inter- 
pretation upon  grounds,  as  it  would  seem,  entirely  philological.  Calvin 
supposes  spirit  of  bumiiiff  of  juthpnent  to  be  equivalent  in  meaning  to  the 
burning  and  judgment  of  the  Spirit.  He  also  gives  the  preposition  its  pri- 
mary meaning,  as  do  the  Seventy  (si/  -^n/ei/xa-/),  //(  (/.  e.  in  the  person  of)  the 
Spirit.  The  common  explanation  is  by  (('.  e,  by  means  of)  or  through  (/.  e. 
the  intervention  of)  the  Spirit. — The  translation  of  "li??  by  consumption  or 
extermination  (Cocc.  Ges.  Hg.  De  W.  Hk.  Um.)  is  neither  so  precise  nor 
so  poetical  as  that  by  burning  (Sept.  Pcsh.  Vulg.  Lu.  Calv.  E.  V.  Low. 
Bs.  Ew.). — J.  D.  Michaelis  ti-anslates  this  clause,  hg  the  righteous  zeal  of 
the  tribunals  and  by  a  de'dructive  ivind  ! 

5.  The  church  is  not,only  to  be  purified  by  God's  judgments,  but  glori- 
fied by  his  manifested  presence,  and  in  that  state  of  glory  kept  secure  by 
his  protection.  The  presence  of  God  is  here  denoted  by  the  ancient  symbol 
of  a  fieiy  cloud,  and  is  promised  to  the  church  in  its  whole  extent  and  to 
its  several  assemblies,  as  distinguished  from  the  one  indivisible  congregation, 
and  its  one  exclusive  place  of  meeting,  under  the  old  economy.  And  Je- 
hovah will  create  (implying  the  exercise  of  almighty  power  and  the  produc- 
tion of  a  new  efi'ect)  over  the  tohole  extent  (literally,  p/ace  or  space)  of  mount 
Zion  (in  its  widest  and  most  spiritual  sense,  as  appears  from  what  fol- 
lows), and  over  her  assemblies,  a  cloud  by  day  and  smoke  {i.  e.  a  cloud  of 
smoke),  and  the  brightness  of  a  flaming  fire  by  night ;  for  over  all  the  glory 


Vek.  G.]  ISAIAH  IV.  125 

(previously  promised,  there  shall  be)  a  covering  (or  shelter). — Most  of 
the  modern  versions  make  this  the  apodosis  of  a  sentence  beginning  with 
ver.  4,  "  When  the  Lord  shall  have  washed,  &c.,  then  will  Jehovah  create," 
&c.  (Cler.  Low.  Ges.  Bs.  Hn  .Um.  Ivn.).  But  although  this  is  grammatical, 
and  leaves  the  general  sense  unchanged,  the  absence  of  the  1  at  the  begin- 
ning of  ver.  4,  and  its  insertion  here,  seems  to  shew  that  ver.  4  is  itself  the 
apodosis  of  a  sentence  beginning  with  ver.  3,  and  that  a  new  one  begins  here 
(Calv.  Cocc.  Vitr.  J.  D.  Mich.  E.  V.  Hg.  De  W.  Hk.  Ew.).  The  present 
tense  (Ges.  De  W.  Ew.  Um.)  is  not  so  well  suited  to  the  context  as  the 
future  (Hg,  Hk.  &c.).  The  older  writers  give  P^P  the  sense  of  divelliiig- 
flace  ;  but  the  modem  lexicogi-aphers  explain  it  to  mean  place  in  general. 
|1D0  73  may  be  rendered  either  ivliole  'place  or  every  place  without  a  change 
of  sense  {ride  supra  chap.  i.  5,  iii.  1),  The  two  appearances  described  in 
this  verse  are  those  presented  by  a  fire  at  diflerent  times,  a  smoke  by  day 
and  a  flame  by  night.  There  is  no  need  therefore  of  explaining  Jt^'V  to 
mean  vapour  (Ivnobel),  or  of  connecting  it  with  what  follows  (Sep.  Vitr. 
Cler.  Hitzig.  Hengstenberg)  in  violation  of  the  Masoretic  accents. — The 
meaning  of  the  promise  is  the  same  whether  ^''^'^PP  be  explained  to  mean 
her  assemhlies  (Low.  Hengst.  Ew.  Um.  Kn.)  or  her  places  of  assernbh/  (Lu. 
J.  D.  Mich.  Ges.  Hn.)  ;  but  the  former  is  the  sense  most  agreeable  to 
usage. — Lowth  omits  73  before  P3?2  on  the  authority  of  eight  manuscripts, 
and  inserts  it  before  HXIptD  on  the  authority  of  one  manuscript  and  the 
Septuagint.  More  than  forty  manuscripts  and  nearly  fifty  editions  read 
iT'XIpO,  and  almost  all  interpreters  explain  it  as  a  plural. — In  the  last 
clause  ''3  has  its  usual  meaning  and  not  that  oi  yea  (Low.),  ichich  (Hn.), 
or  so  that  (Kn.).  —  Clericus,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  Lee  (Heb.  Lex.  s.  v.  HSn) 
make  li3|i  the  subject  of  the  last  clause,  "over  all,  glory  shall  be  a  de- 
fence," which  is  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  Masoretic  pointing.  Instead 
of  orer  Kocher  reads  above,  i.  e.  superior  to  all  former  glory,  a  construction 
which  is  given  in-  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase,  IP  T^Jil!  (more  than).  Some 
regard  this  as  the  statement  of  a  general  fact,  "  over  everything  glorious 
there  is  protection,"  i.e.  men  are  accustomed  to  protect  what  they  value 
highly  (Yitr.  Eos.  Hengst.  Ew.) ;  but  the  great  majority  of  writers  under- 
stand it  as  a  prophecy  or  promise. — HSn  is  construed  as  a  passive  verb,  it 
is  or  shall  be  covered,  by  the  Septuagint  {6xs'zaa&/iiriTai)  Gesenius,  Maurer, 
Knobel.  But  as  this  is  a  harsh  construction,  and  as  the  Pual  of  '"iQn  does 
not  occur  elsewhere,  it  is  better,  with  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Hehgstenberg,  and 
the  older  wi-iters,  to  explain  it  as  a  noun  derived  from  ^^^,  and  agreeing  - 
with  the  verb  is  or  shall  be  understood,  or  as  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  sup- 
pose, with  the  same  verb  in  the  first  clause  of  the  next  verse,  "  For  over 
all  the  glory  a  covering  and  shelter  there  shall  be."  The  sense  is  not 
affected  by  this  last  construction,  but  such  a  change  in  the  division  of  the 
text  can  be  justified  only  by  necessity. 

G.  The  promise  of  refuge  and  protection  is  repeated  or  continued  under 
the  figure  of  a  shelter  from  heat  and  rain,  natural  emblems  for  distress 
and  danger.  And  there  shall  be  a  shelter  (properly  a  booth  or  covert  of 
leaves  and  branches,  to  serve) /or  a  shadow  by  day  (as  a  protection) /;o/» 
heat,  and  for  a  corert  and  for  a  hidinrj-place  from  storm,  and  from  rain. 
— Instead  of  making  n3Dthe  subject  of  the  sentence  (E.  V.  De  W.  Hn.  Um.), 
some  regard  it  as  the  predicate  referring  to  a  subject  understood.  He,  i.e. 
God,  shall  be  a  shelter,  &c.  (Ges.  Bs.).  It,  the  cloud  or  the  protection, 
shall  be  a  shelter,  &c.  (Low.  Hg.). — That  HSp  means  the  tabernacle  or 
temple,  which  it  never  does  elsewhere,  is  a  notion  peculiar  to  Clericus. — 


12G  ISAIAH  V. 


DT!)'.  is  not  a  whirlwind  (Vulf^.)  or  a  liail-storm  (J.  D.  Mich.)  but  an  inun- 
dation (Jun.  Cler.  J.  H.  Mich.)  i.  c.  a  flood  of  rain,  a  pouring,  di'iving  rain 
(Luther,  Wetter,  Gcsenius,  Unge witter). 


CHAPTER  V. 

This  chapter  contains  a  description  of  the  prevalent  iniquities  of  Judah, 
and  of  the  judgments  which,  in  consequence  of  these,  had  been  or  were  to 
be  inflicted  on  the  people.  The  form  of  the  prophecy  is  peculiar,  consist- 
ing of  a  parable  and  a  commentary  on  it. 

The  prophet  first  delivers  his  whole  message  in  a  parabolic  form,  vers. 
1—7.     He  then  explains  and  amplifies  it  at  great  length,  vers.  8-30. 

The  parable  sets  forth  the  peculiar  privileges,  obligations,  guilt,  and 
doom  of  Israel,  under  the  figure  of  a  highly  favoured  vineyard  which,  in- 
stead of  good  fruit,  brings  forth  only  wild  grapes,  and  is  therefore  given  up 
to  desolation,  vers.  1-6.  The  application  is  expressly  made  by  the  Pro- 
phet himself,  ver.  7. 

In  the  remainder  of  the  chapter,  he  enumerates  the  sins  which  were 
included  in  the  general  expressions  of  ver.  7,  and  describes  theu*  punish- 
ment. In  doing  this,  he  first  gives  a  catalogue  of  sins  with  their  appropriate 
punishments  annexed,  vers.  8-24.  He  then  describes  the  means  used  to 
inflict  them,  and  the  tuial  issue,  vers.  25-30. 

The  catalogue  of  sins  and  judgments  comprehends  two  series  of  woes  or 
denunciations.  In  the  first,  each  sin  is  followed  by  its  punishment,  vers. 
8-17.  In  the  second  the  sins  follow  one  another  in  uninterrupted  succes- 
sion, and  the  punishment  is  reserved  until  the  close,  vers.  18-24. 

In  the  former  series,  the  first  woe  is  uttered  against  avaricious  and  am- 
bitious grasping  after  lands  and  houses,  to  be  punished  by  sterility  and 
desolation,  vers.  8-10.  The  second  woe  is  uttered  against  drunkenness, 
untimely  mirth,  and  disregard  of  providential  warnings,  appropriately 
punished  by  captivity,  hunger,  thii-st,  and  general  mortality,  vers.  11-14. 
To  these  two  woes  are  added  a  general  declaration  of  theu"  purpose  and 
efi"ect,  to  humble  man  and  exalt  God,  and  a  repeated  threatening  of  general 
desolation  as  a  punishment  of  both  the  sins  just  mentioned,  vers.  15—17. 

The  sins  denounced  in  the  second  series  of  woes  are  presumptuous  and 
incredulous  defiance  of  God's  judgments,  the  deliberate  confounding  of 
moral  distinctions,  undue  reliance  upon  human  wisdom,  and  drunkenness 
considered  as  a  vice  of  judges,  and  as  causing  the  perversion  of  justice, 
vers.  18-23.  To  these  he  adds  a  general  threatening  of  destruction  as  a 
necessary  consequence  of  their  forsaking  God,  ver.  24. 

In  declaring  the  means  used  to  efi"ect  this  condign  retribution,  the 
Prophet  sets  before  us  two  distinct  stages  or  degi-ces  of  punishment.  The 
first,  which  is  briefly  and  figuratively  represented  as  a  violent  and  destruc- 
tive stroke  of  God's  hand,  is  described  as  incfiectual,  ver.  25.  To  com- 
plete the  work,  another  is  provided  in  the  shape  of  an  invading  enemy, 
before  whom,  after  a  brief  fluctuation,  Israel  disappears  in  total  darkness, 
vers.  2G-30. 

In  its  general  design  and  subject,  this  prophecy  resembles  those  which 
go  before  it ;  but  it  diflers  remarkably  from  both  in  holding  up  to  view  ex- 
clusively the  dark  side  of  the  picture,  the  guilt  and  doom  of  the  ungodly 
Jews,  without  the  cheering  contrast  of  purgation  and  deliverance  to  be  ex- 
perienced from  the  same  events  by  the  true  Israel,  the  Church  of  God. 


Yek.  l.J  ISAIAH  r.  127 

This  omission,  which  of  course  must  he  supplied  from  other  prophecies,  is 
by  Hitzi»JDCorrectly  represented  as  a  reason  for  regarding  this  as  the  con- 
clusion of  the  one  J2receding,  to  confirm  which  supposition  he  appeals  to 
certain  verbaTcoIncidences,  particularl}^  that  between  ver.  15  and  chap,  ii, 
9,  17.  But  these  and  the  more  general  resemblance  of  the  chapters,  can 
only  prove  at  most  what  must  be  true  on  any  hypothesis,  to  wit,  that  the 
prophecies  relate  to  the  same  subject  and  belong  to  the  same  period.  A 
similar  coincidence  between  ver.  25  and  chap.  ix.  11,  16,  20,  x._4,  has  led 
Ewald  to  interpolate  the  whole  of  that  passage  (from  chap.  ix.  5,  to  chap. 
X.  4),  between  the  twenty-fifth  and  the  twenty-sixth  verses  of  this  chapter  ; 
"as  if  the  same  form  of  expression  could  not  be  employed  by  the  same 
author  upon  difierent  occasions,  and  as  if  such  a  treatment  of  the  text  did 
not  open  the  door  to  boundless  licence  of  conjecture.  With  still  less  sem- 
blance of  a  reason,  Hendewerk  connects  this  chapter  with  the  first  nine 
verses  of  the  seventh  and  the  whole  of  the  seventeenth,  as  making  up  one 
prophecy.  The  old  opinion,  still  retained  by  Gesenius,  Henderson,  Um- 
briet,  and  Knobel,  is  that  this  chapter,  if  not  an  independent  prophecy,  is 
at  least  a  distinct  appendix  to  the  one  preceding,  with  which  it  is  connected, 
not  only  in  the  way  already  mentioned,  but  also  by  the  seeiaing  allusioa-in 
the  first  verse  to  chap.  iii.  14,  where  the  Church  of  God  is  called  his  vine- 
yard, a  comparison  which  reappears  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  and  is 
carried  out  in  several  of  our  Saviour's  parables. 

This  chapter,  like  the  first,  is  applicable  not  to  one  event  exclusively, 
but  to  a  sequence  of  events  which  was  repeated  more  than  once,  although 
its  tenns  were  never  fully  realised  until  the  closing  period  of  the  Jewish 
history,  after  the  true  Messiah  was  rejected,  when  one  ray  of  hope  was 
quenched  after  another,  until  all  grew  dark  for  ever  in  the  skies  of  Israel.  '■ 

1.  The  parable  is  given  in  vers.  1-6,  and  applied  in  ver.  7.  It  is  intro- 
duced in  such  a  manner  as  to  secure  a  favourable  hearing  from  those  whose 
conduct  it  condemns,  and  in  some  measure  to  conceal  its  drift  until  the 
application.  The  Prophet  proposes  to  sing  a  song,  i.  e.  to  utter  a  rhythmical 
and  figurative  naiTative,  relating  to  a  friend  of  his,  his  friend's  own  song 
indeed  about  his  vineyard.  In  the  last  clause  he  describes  the  situation  of 
the  vineyard,  its  favourable  exposure  and  productive  soil.  /  idll  sing,  if 
you  please  (or  let  me  sing  I  pray  you),  of  my  friend  (i.  e.  concerning  him), 
my  frieniV s  song  of  his  vineyard  [i.  e.  concerning  it).  My  friend  had  a  vine- 
yard in  a  hill  of  great  fertility  (literally  in  a  horn,  a  son  of  fatness,  ac- 
cording to  the  oriental  idiom,  which  applies  the  terms  of  human  kindred  to 
relations  of  every  kind). — The  common  version,  now  will  I  sing,  seems  to 
take  N3  as  an  adverb  of  time,  whereas  it  is  a  particle  of  entreaty,  used  to 
soften  the  expression  of  a  purpose,  and  to  give  a  tone  of  mildness  and  cour- 
tesy to  the  address.  Sing  and  song  are  used,  as  with  us,  in  reference  to 
poetry,  without  emplopng  actual  musical  performance. — Calvin's  ti'anslation 
{for  my  beloved,  i.  e.  in  his  name,  his  person,  his  behalf)  is  at  variance  with 
the  usage  of  the  particle.  Grotius  [to  my  beloved)  is  inappropriate,  as  the 
friend  is  not  addressed,  and  this  is  not  a  song  of  praise.  Maurer's  [of  my 
beloved,  i.  e.  belonging  to  him,  hke  in?,  a  Psalm  o/ Da ivVZ),  is  a  form  only 
used  in  titles  or  inscriptions.  The  ?  has  doubtless  the  same  sense  before 
this  word  as  before  his  vineyard.  Knobel  supposes  song  of  my  friend  also 
to  denote  a  song  respecting  him,  because  he  is  not  introduced  as  speaking 
till  ver.  3.  But  for  that  very  reason  it  is  first  called  a  song  concerning  him, 
and  then  his  own  song.  The  cognate  words  ''yy.  and  ni'l  are  I'eferred  by 
some  to  different  subjects  ;  but  their  identity  is  plain  from  the  possession  of 


128  ISAIAH  V.  [Vek.  2,  3. 

the  vineyard  being  ascribed  to  both. — The  Vulgate  and  Luther  give  to  HH 
its  usual  sense  of  loicle,  and  Cocceius  applies  it  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is 
altogether  arbitrary.  It  seems  to  be  joined  with  ^'^y^  to  vary  the  expression 
of  the  same  idea,  that  oi  friend,  the  unusual  terms  being  used  not  mystically 
but  poetically.  The  Prophet  must  be  understood  as  speaking  of  a  human 
friend  until  he  explains  himself. — Umbrcit  makes  ]'}p.  govern  the  next 
phrase ;  on  the  projection  [Vorsinunrj)  of  a  fat  place  ;  but  the  latter  is  iu  that 
case  too  indefinite. — Clericus  supposes  an  allusion  to  a  horn  of  oil,  Yitringa 
to  the  curved  shape  of  the  Holy  Land  ;  but  most  interpreters  agi'eo  that 
liorn  is  here  used,  as  in  various  other  languages,  for  the  sharp  peak  of 
a  mountain  [e.g.  Schreckhorn  and  Wetterhom  in  Switzerland),  or  as  in 
Arabic,  for  a  detached  hill.  The  preposition  does  not  properly  mean  on 
but  //(,  implying  that  the  vineyard  only  occupied  a  part,  and  that  this 
was  not  the  summit,  but  the  acclivity  exposed  to  the  sun,  which  is  the 
best  situation  for  a  vineyard.     (Apertos  Bacchus  amat  colles.  Virg.  Georg. 

2.  Not  only  was  the  vineyard  favourably  situated,  but  assiduously  tilled, 
protected  from  intrusion,  aud  provided  with  everything  that  seemed  to  be 
needed  to  secure  an  abundant  vintage.  And  he  digged  it  up,  and  gathered 
out  the  stones  thereof,  and  planted  it  tvith  Sorek,  mentioned  elsewhere  (Jer. 
ii.  21)  as  the  choicest  kind  of  vine,  which  either  gave  or  owed  its  name  to 
the  valley  of  Sorek  (Judges  xti.  4),  and  built  a  toirer  in  the  midst  of  it, 
partly  for  protection  from  men  and  beasts,  and  partly  for  the  pleasm-e  and 
convenience  of  the  owner,  and  also  a  ivine-vat,  to  receive  the  juice  from  the 
wine-press  immediately  above  ;  he  heved  in  it,  i.  e.  in  a  rock  (or  heiied  may 
be  simply  used  for  excavated  in  the  ground,  a  common  situation  in  hot 
countries  for  the  lacus,  reservoir  or  wine-vat),  and  he  waited  for  it,  i.  e.  he 
allowed  it  time,  to  make,  produce,  bear,  bring  iorth,  graj:)es,  and  it  produced 
vnld  grapes. — Instead  of  he  ivaitedfor  it,  Umbreit  reads,  he  hoped,  Lowth, 
Barnes,  and  Henderson,  he  expected,  and  the  authorised  version,  he  looked, 
in  the  old  English  sense.  But  the  first  translation,  which  is  that  of  the 
Septuagint  (i/xsms),  is  entitled  to  the  preference,  because  it  conveys  the  full 
sense  of  the  Hebrew  word  without  creating  any  difficulty  in  the  subsequent 
application  of  the  figure. — J.  D.  Michaelis,  Eichhorn,  and  Rosenmiiller 
take  C^'i??  in  the  sense  of  aconite  or  nightshade,  a  plant  which  does  not 
grow  in  Palestine.  Most  modern  writers  approve  the  version  of  Jerome, 
lahrnsca,  the  labmsca  vilis  of  Pliny,  and  lahrnsca  uva  of  Columella,  an 
acrid  and  unwholesome  gi'ape,  contrasted  with  the  good  gi-ape  by  Sedulius 
(1,  29)  precisely  as  the  two  are  here  contrasted  by  Isaiah  : 

Labruscam  placidis  quid  adliuc  prseponitis  uvis  ? 

For  he  digged  it  vp  and  gathered  out  the  stones  thereof,  the  Septuagint  has 
he  hedged  it  and  walled  it,  both  which  senses  may  be  reconciled  with  ety- 
mology, although  rejected  by  the  modern  lexicographers.  The  question  is 
of  no  excgetical  importance,  as  the  words  in  either  case  denote  appropriate 
and  nccessaiy  acts  for  the  culture  or  protection  of  the  vineyard. 

8.  Having  described  the  advantageous  situation,  soil,  and  culture  of  the 
v^ineyard,  and  its  failure  to  produce  good  fruit,  he  submits  the  case  to  the 
decision  of  his  hearers.  And  noio,  not  merely  in  a  temporal  but  a  logical 
sense,  "  this  being  the  case,"  0  inhabitant  of  Jerusalem  and  man  of  Judah, 
the  singular  form  adding  greatly  to  the  individuality  and  life  of  the  expres- 
sion, judge  I  pray  you,  pray  decide  or  act  as  arbiters,  hetxceen  me  and  my 
vineyard. — To  suppose,  with  Calvin  and  others,  that  the  people  are  here 


Vee,  4.]  ISAIAH  r.  129 

called  upon  directly  to  condemn  themselves  because  their  guilt  was  so  appa- 
rent, is  to  mar  the  beauty  of  the  parable  by  a  premature  application  of  its 
figures.  They  are  rather  called  upon  to  judge  between  a  stranger  and  his 
vineyard,  simply  as  such,  unaware  that  they  are  thereby  passing  judgment 
on  themselves.  The  meaning  and  design  of  the  appeal  are  perfectly  illus- 
trated by  that  which  Christ  makes  (Mat.  xxi.  40)  in  a  pai-able  analagous  to 
this  and  founded  on  it.  There  as  here  the  audience  are  called  upon  to  judge 
in  a  case  which  they  regard  as  foreign  to  their  own,  if  not  fictitious,  and 
it  is  only  after  their  decision  that  they  are  made  to  see  its  bearing  on  them- 
selves. So  too  in  Nathan's  parable  to  David  (2  Sam  xii.  1),  it  was  not  till 
"  David's  anger  was  greatly  kindled  against  the  man,"  i.e.  the  stranger  of 
whom  he  understood  the  prophet  to  be  speaking,  that  "  Nathan  said  to 
David,  Thou  art  the  man."  A  disregard  of  these  analogies  impairs  both 
the  moral  force  and  the  poetical  unity  and  beauty  of  the  apologue.  The 
same  thing  may  be  said  of  the  attempt  made  by  the  Chaldee  Paraphrast, 
Cocceius,  Yitringa,  and  most  recently  by  Umbreit,  to  put  a  specific  figurative 
sense  on  each  part  of  the  parable,  the  wall,  the  tower,  the  hedge,  &c., 
which  is  not  more  reasonable  here  than  it  would  be  in  explaining  Jil sop's 
fables.  The  parable,  as  a  whole,  corresponds  to  its  subject  as  a  whole,  but 
all  the  particulars  included  in  the  one  are  not  separately  intended  to  denote 
particulars  included  in  the  other.  A  lion  may  be  a  striking  emblem  of  a 
hero  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  mane,  claws,  &c.,  of  the  beast  must  all 
be  significant  of  something  in  the  man.  Nay,  they  cannot  even  be  supposed 
to  be  so,  without  sensibly  detracting  from  the  force  and  beauty  of  the  image 
as  a  whole. 

4.  This  verse  shows  that  the  parable  is  not  yet  complete,  and  that  its 
application  would  be  premature.  Having  called  upon  the  Jews  to  act  as 
umpires,  he  now  submits  a  specific  question  for  their  arbitration.  What  to 
do  more  {i.  e.  what  more  is  there  to  be  done)  to  my  vineyard  and  I  have  not 
(or  in  the  Enghsh  idiom,  that  I  have  not)  done  in  it  (not  only  to  or  for  but 
in  it,  with  reference  to  the  place  as  well  as  the  object  of  the  action)  ?  Why 
did  I  wait  for  it  to  bear  grapes  and  it  hore  ivild  grapes  ? — Calvin  and 
Gesenius  supply  ivas  instead  of  is,  in  the  first  clause,  tvhat  ivas  there  to  do 
more,  i.  e.  w^hat  more  was  there  to  be  done,  or  was  I  bound  to  do  ?  But 
though  grammatically  exceptionable,  does  not  agree  so  well  with  the  con- 
nection between  this  verse  and  the  next  as  a  question  and  answer.  Still 
less  exact  in  the  Enghsh  Version  (followed  by  Lowth,  Barnes,  and  Hender- 
son), what  more  coidd  have  been  done  ?  The  question  whether  God  had 
done  all  that  he  could  for  the  Jews,  when  the  Scriptures  were  still  incom- 
plete, and  Christ  had  not  yet  come,  however  easy  of  solution,  is  a  question 
here  irrelevant,  because  it  has  relation,  not  to  something  in  the  text,  but  to 
something  suppHed  by  the  interpreter,  and  that  not  only  without  necessity, 
but  in  violation  of  the  context ;  for  the  next  verse  is  not  an  answer  to  the 
question  what  God  could  have  done,  but  what  he  shall  or  will  do.  The  most 
simple,  exact,  and  satisfactory  translation  of  this  first  clause  is  that  given  by 
Cocceius  (quid  faciendum  amplius  vinte  meas)  and  Ewald  (was  ist  noch 
meinem  Weinberge  zu  thun  ?) — In  the  last  clause  Calvin  understands"  the 
owner  of  the  vineyard  to  express  sm'prise  at  his  own  unreasonable  expecta- 
tions. Why  did  T  expect  it  {i.  e.  how  could  I  expect  it)  to  bear  grapes  ?  This 
construction  not  only  raises  a  new  difficulty  in  the  application  of  the  words 
to  God,  but  is  inconsistent  with  the  context,  the  whole  drift  of  which  is  to 
shew  that  the  expectation  was  a  reasonable  one.  The  interrogation  really 
belongs  to  the  second  number  only,  the  first  being  merely  introductory,  or 

VOL.  I.  "         I 


130  ISAIAn  V.  [Ver.  5,  0. 

rather  to  the  whole  clause  as  a  complex  sentence.  "  Why,  -when  I  Avaited 
for  it  to  bear  grapes,  did  it  bear  wild  grapes  ?"  As  other  examples  of  the 
eame  construction,  Knobel  refers  to  chap.  xii.  1,  1.,  2;  and  to  Job  ii.  10, 
iv.  2,  iii.  11. 

5.  He  now  proceeds  to  answer  his  own  question,  in  a  tone  of  pungent 
iron)',  almost  amounting  to  a  sarcasm.  The  reply  which  might  naturally 
have  been  looked  for  was  a  statement  of  some  new  care,  some  neglected 
precaution,  some  untried  mode  of  culture  ;  but  instead  of  this  he  threatens 
to  destroy  the  vineyarJ,  as  the  only  expedient  remaining.  The  rhetorical 
effect  of  this  sudden  turn  in  the  discourse  is  heightened  by  the  very  form 
of  the  last  clause,  in  which  the  simple  future,  as  the  natural  expression  of 
a  purpose,  is  exchanged  for  the  infinitive,  denoting  the  bare  action  without 
specification  of  person,  time,  or  number.  And  now  (since  you  cannot  tell) 
/  will  let  you  hioiv  if  you  please  (or  let  me  tell  you)  uhat  I  am  doing  to  my 
vineyard,  i.  e.  according  to  the  idiomatic  use  of  the  participle,  uhat  I  am 
about  to  do,  suggesting  the  idea  of  a  proximate  futurity),  remove  its  Jiedye 
and  it  shall  become  a  ixisture  (literalh',  a  consuminr/,  but  with  special  refe- 
rence to  cattle),  break  down  its  xcall,  and  it  shall  become  a  tramplinri-place 
(/.  e.  it  shall  be  overrun  and  trampled  down).' — Remove  and  brecdc  are  not 
imperatives  but  infinitives,  equivalent  in  meaning  to  I  ivill  remove  and  break, 
but  more  concise  and  rapid  in  expression.  Cocceius  and  Vitringa  suppose 
an  ellipsis  of  the  finite  verb  after  the  infinitive,  "  removing  I  will  remove," 
"  breaking  down  I  will  break  down."  This  construction,  in  its  full  form, 
is  extremely  common  ;  but  against  the  supposition  of  its  ever  being  ellipti- 
cally  used,  there  is  this  objection,  that  the  repetition  is  designed  to  bo 
emphatic,  an  effect  which  is  entirely  destro3'ed  by  the  omission.  Ivnobel 
supposes  that  the  thorn  hedge  and  stone  wall,  which  are  separately  men- 
tioned elsewhere,  arc  here  put  together  to  denote  a  more  than  ordinary 
care  bestowed  on  the  ideal  vineyard.  The  more  common  opinion  is  that 
both  were  actually  used  in  the  same  case  with  a  view  to  difl'erent  kinds  of 
depredation. — DIp"]p  is  a  noun  of  place  formed  in  the  usual  manner  (Gesen. 
Heb.  Gramm.  §  83,  14)  from  the  verb  D^'^,  which  occurs  in  chap.  i.  12. — 
On  the  sense  become  (instead  of  be  for)  vide  supra,  ch.  i.  14,  21,  22,  31. 

6.  To  the  threatening  of  exposure  he  now  adds  that  of  desolation  arising 
from  neglect  of  culture,  while  the  last  clause  contains  a  beautiful  though 
almost  imperceptible  transition  from  the  apologue  to  the  reality.  By  adding 
to  the  other  threats,  which  any  human  vine-dresser  might  have  reasonably 
uttered,  one  which  only  God  could  execute,  the  parable  at  one  stroke  is 
brought  to  a  conclusion,  and  the  mind  prepared  for  the  ensuing  application. 
And  1 2)1  ace  it  (render  it)  a  desolation.  It  shall  not  le  2>riined  and  it  shall 
not  he  dressed,  and  there  shall  come  up  thorns  and  briers.  And  I  will  lay 
my  commands  upon  the  clouds  from  raining  rain  upon  it,  i.  e.  that  they 
rain  no  rain  upon  it.  The  addition  of  the  noun  rain  is  emphatic  and  equi- 
valent to  any  rain  at  all. — The  English  version  lay  waste  is  perhaps  too 
strong  for  the  original  expression,  which  rather  signifies  the  letting  it  run 
to  waste  by  mere  exposure  and  neglect. — The  older  versions  take  T}V!'.  in 
the  sense  oi  digging  (Sept.  Vulgate,  Luthor,  Calvin),  but  the  latest  writers 
prefer  that  of  dressing,  ai'ranging,  putting  in  order. — Gesenius  and  Ewald 
follow  Cocceius  in  referring  ""173/  to  the  vineyard  as  its  subject;  it  shall  come 
up  thorns  and  briers,  as  the  eye  is  said  to  run  doivn  water  (Lam.  iii.  48), 
and  a  land  to  Jlow  milk  and  honey  (Exod.  iii.  8).  The  construction,  though 
undoubtedly  good  Hebrew,  is  not  so  obvious  as  the  old  and  common  one. 
To  comm,and  from  or  axcay  from  is  to  deter  from  any  act  by  a  command, 


Ver.  7-9.]  ISAIAH  V.  131 

in  other  words  to  forbid  or  to  command  not  to  do  the  thing  in  qnestion. 
In  this  sense  only  can  the  preposition  from  be  said  to  have  a  negative 
meaning. 

7.  The  starthng  menace  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  verse  would  naturally 
prompt  the  question,  Who  is  this  that  assumes  power  over  clouds  and  rain, 
and  what  is  the  vineyard  which  he  thus  denounces  ?  To  this  tacit  ques- 
tion we  have  here  the  answer.  As  if  he  had  said,  do  not  wonder  that  the 
owner  of  the  vineyard  should  thus  speak,  for  the  vineyard  of  Jehovah  of 
Hosts  is  the  Hou-.c  of  Israel,  the  church,  considered  as  a  whole,  and  the  man 
of  Jud'ih  is  the  plant  (f  his  pleasures,  or  his  favourite  plant.  And  he  tuaited 
for  judgment,  practical  justice,  as  in  ch.  i.  17,  and  behold  bloodshed,  for 
rif/hteousness  and  behold  a  cry,  either  outcry  and  disturbance,  or  more  spe- 
citically  the  cry  of  the  oppressed,  which  last  is  more  agreeable  to  usnge, 
and  at  the  same  time  more  poetical  and  graphic. — The  ''3  at  the  beginning 
has  been  variously  rendered  but  (Luther,  Gesen.  Hendw.  Umbr.),  to  wit 
(Hitzig),  certainly  (Calvin),  &c.  ]3ut  the  true  connection  of  the  verse  with 
that  before  it  not  only  admits  but  requires  the  strict  sense,  for,  because,  as 
given  in  the  ancient  versions,  and  retained  by  Cocceius,  Ewald,  and  Knobel. 
— J.  D.  Michaelis  and  all  the  later  Germans  follow  Pagninus  and  Montanus 
in  translating  V!?^  plantation.  But  the  word  is  unambiguously  used  in  that 
sense  nowhere  else,  and  it  does  not  agi-ee  well  with  the  singular  term  man. 
It  is  true  that  plant  and  man  may  be  put  for  a  collection  of  plants  and 
men,  but  this  should  not  afiect  the  strict  translation  of  the  sentence. — The 
paronomasia  or  designed  correspondence  in  the  form  and  sound  of  the 
parallel  expressions  in  the  last  clause  has  been  copied  by  August!,  Gese- 
nius,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Knobel.  But  as  Hendeweik  has  well  observed, 
such  imitations  can  even  approximate  to  the  form  of  the  original,  only  by 
departing  more  or  less  from  the  strict  sense  of  particular  expressions,  a 
loss  which  can  hardly  be  considered  as  made  good  by  the  mere  assonance 
of  such  combinations  as  Gerechtigkeit  and  Schlechtigkeit,  Begluckimcj  and 
Bedrikkimr/,  Milde  and  Unbilde. 

8.  Here  begins  a  detailed  specification  of  the  sins  included  in  the  general 
expressions  of  ver.  7.  We  have  first  two  woes  pronounced  against  as  many 
sins,  each  followed  by  a  threatening  of  appropriate  punishment,  and  a 
general  threatening  which  applies  to  both,  vers.  8-17.  The  first  sin  thus 
denounced  is  that  of  ambitious  and  avaricious  grasping  after  property,  not 
merel}^  in  opposition  to  the  peculiar  institutions  of  the  law,  but  to  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  morals,  connected  as  it  always  is  with  a  neglect  of 
charitable  duties  and  a  willingness  to  sacrifice  the  good  of  others.  The 
verse  before  us  may  be  understood,  however,  as  descriptive  rather  of  the 
tendency  and  a'm  of  this  ambitious  grasping,  than  of  its  actual  effects. 
Woe  to  the  joiners  of  house  xoitli  house,  or  those  making  house  touch  house, 

fiehl  to  field  they  bring  together,  literally,  cause  them  to  approach,  even  to  a 
failure  (or  defect)  of  jjlace,  i.  e.  until  there  is  no  room  left,  and  ye,  by  a 
sudden  apostrophe  addressing  those  of  whom  he  had  been  speaking,  are 
made  (or  left)  to  dwell  by  yourselves  in  the  midst  of  the  land,  owning  all 
from  the  centre  to  the  circumference,  or  simply  within  its  bounds,  within 
it.  The  translation  earth  is  equally  agreeable  to  usage,  and  expresses  still 
more  strongly  the  extent  of  their  desires  ;  but  land  is  more  natural  and 
preferred  by  almost  all  interpreters.  Ewald  regards  ''IH  as  a  simple  excla- 
mation (0  die  Haus  reihen  an  Haus  !)  But  this  translation  is  inadequate, 
as  an  expression  of  denunciation  is  required  by  the  context. 

9.  The  inordinate  desire  of  lands  and  houses  shall  be  punished  with  the 


132  ISAIAir  V.  Yer.  10,  11. 

loss  of  them,  vers.  0,  10.  And  firsi,  be  threatens  th-it  the  valuable  bouses 
which  they  coveted,  and  gained  by  fraud  or  violence,  shall  one  day  be  left 
empty,  an  event  implying  the  death,  captivity,  or  degradation  of  their 
owners.  In  my  ears  Jehovah  of  JIns/s  is  saying,  as  if  his  voice  Avcrc  still 
ringing  in  the  Prophet's  ears,  of  o  truth  (literally,  if  not,  being  part  of  an 
old  formula  of  swearing,  "may  it  be  so  and  so  if,"  ^-c.  ;  so  that  the  nega- 
tive form  conveys  the  strongest  aflirniation,  surely,  certainltj)  many  houses 
shall  become  a  desolation,  great  and  yood  for  want  of  an  inhabitant. — The 
Septuagint  and  Vulgate,  followed  by  Luther,  Calvin,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
make  in  my  ears  the  words  of  God  himself,  as  if  he  had  said,  "  these  things 
are  in  my  ears,"  or  "it  (the  cry,  ver.  7)  is  in  my  ears,  saith  Jehovah  of 
Hosts."  But  most  modern  writers  follow  the  Targnm  and  Peshito  in  con- 
struing this  clause  according  to  the  analogy  of  chap.  xxii.  14  ("in  my  cars 
it  was  revealed  by  Jehovah  of  Hosts,"  or  "Jehovah  of  Hosts  revealed  him- 
self.")— The  common  version,  shall  be  desolate,  docs  not  convey  the  whole 
idea,  which  is  that  of  bccomimj,  being  changed  into  {vide  supra,  ver.  6), 
and  is  so  rendered  in  most  versions. — The  sense  usually  given  to  C^ILD  is 
the  specific  one  of  fair  or  beautiful  (Henderson,  fine  ;  Barnes,  splendid.) 
But  Cocceius  and  Vitringa  take  it  more  correctly  in  the  general  sense  of 
good,  including  the  ideas  of  profit  and  convenience,  as  well  as  that  of 
elegance  or  beauty. — By  most  interpreters  V^V^  in  the  last  clause  is  regarded 
as  a  synonyme  or  at  most  as  an  intensive  form  of  pN  "  wholly  without 
inhabitant."  But  the  causative  meaning,  "  for  the  want  of,"  "  from  the 
absence  of,"  T^  being  properly  a  noun,  affords  a  better  sense  here,  as  ex- 
plaining how  or  why  the  houses  should  be  desolate,  and  may  be  justified 
by  the  analogy  of  Jor.  xix.  11  ;  (J.  ]).  Michaelis,  "because  there  will  be 
no  one  to  inhabit  them.  Clcricus,  Vitringa,  and  Hendcwerk  explain  it 
to  mean  so  that  there  shall  not  be,  but  without  authority  from  usage. — 
Henderson's  version  of  the  foregoing  words,  the  numerous  houses,  the  large 
and  fine  ones,  and  that  of  Gesenius,  from  which  it  is  derived,  seem  to  lay 
too  much  stress  upon  the  adjectives. — On  the  form  if  not,  compare  chap, 
xiv.  24  ;  Deut.  i.  85  ;  Ps.  cxxxi.  2. 

10.  As  the  sin  related  both  to  lands  and  houses,  so  both  are  mentioned 
in  denouncing  punishment.  The  desolation  of  the  houses  was  in  fact  to 
arise  from  the  miproductiveness  of  the  lands,  Piuinous  failure  of  crops, 
and  a  near  approach  to  absolute  sterility  are  threatened  as  a  condign  pun- 
ishment of  those  who  added  field  to  field  and  house  to  house.  The  meaning 
of  this  verse  depends  not  on  the  absolute  value  of  the  measures  mentioned, 
but  on  their  proportions.  The  last  clause  threatens  that  the  seed  sown, 
instead  of  being  multiplied,  should  be  reduced  nine-tenths  ;  and  a  similar 
idea  is  no  doubt  expressed  by  the  analogous  terms  of  the  preceding  clause. 
For  ten  acres  (literally  yokes,  like  the  Latin  jngerum  from  jugum)  of  vine- 
yard shall  make  (produce)  one  bath,  a  licpiid  measure  here  put  for  a  very 
small  quantity  of  wine  to  be  yielded  by  so  large  a  quantity  of  land,  and  the 
seed  of  a  homer,  i.  e.  seed  to  the  amount  of  a  homer,  or  in  our  idiom,  a 
homer  of  seed,  shall  produce  an  ephah,  a  dry  measure  equal  to  the  liquid 
bath,  and  constituting  one-tenth  of  a  homer,  as  we  learn  from  E/ek.  xlv. 
11-14.  The  English  Version,  followed  by  Lowth,  translates  '3  yea,  while 
Clericus  and  Gesenius  omit  it  altogether.  Ihit  the  particle  is  necessary,  in 
its  usual  sense,  to  connect  this  verse  with  the  prediction  in  ver.  9,  of  which 
it  gives  Ihe  gi'ound  or  reason. 

11.  The  second  woe  is  uttered  against  drunkenness  and  heartless  dis- 
sipation, with  its  usual  accompaniment  of  inattention  to  God's  providential 


Yer.  12.]  ISAIAH  r.  133 

dealings,  and  is  connected  with  captivity,  hunger,  thirst,  general  mortality, 
as  its  appropriate  punishment,  vers.  11-14.  The  descrii^tion  of  the  sin  is 
contained  in  vers.  11,  12,  and  first  that  of  ch'unkenness,  considered  not  as 
an  occasional  excess,  but  as  a  daily  business,  diligently  prosecuted  with  a 
devotion,  such  as  would  ensure  success  in  any  laudable  or  lawful  occupation. 
Woe  to  those  rising  early  in  the  morning  to  jjursue  strong  drink  (literally, 
strong  drink  theij  imrsue),  deluging  in  the  twilight  (nntil)  wine  inflames  them. 
— That  ^^'J  does  not  here  mean  the  morning  twilight,  but  as  usual  the 
dusk  of  evening  (Prov.  vii.  9),  is  plain  from  the  preposition  in  prefixed. 
The  idea  of  continuing  till  night  (Vulg.  Calv.  Eng.  Vs.)  is  rather  implied 
than  expressed.  The  allusion  is  not  so  much  to  the  disgracefulness  of 
drinking  in  the  morning  (Knobel,  Henderson),  as  to  their  spending  day  and 
night  in  drinking,  rising  early  and  sitting  up  late.  Before  wine  in  the  last 
clause  the  older  wTiters  supply  and  (Peshito,  J.  D.  Michaelis),  tvhile 
(Calvin,  Yitriuga),  or  so  that  (Yulgate,  Luther,  Cocceius,  Lowth,  Rosen.) 
Gesenius  avoids  this  by  a  paraphrase  ("  sit  late  at  night  by  wine  in- 
llamed"),  and  Ewald  treats  the  participles  in  both  clauses  as  adverbial  ex- 
pressions used  to  qualify  the  finite  verb  ("  they  who  early  in  the  morning 
run  after  strong  drink,  Jate  in  the  evening  are  inflamed  by  wine  ").  The 
precise  construction  of  the  Hebrew  may  be  thus  retained — "  those  who, 
rising  early  in  the  morning,  pursue  strong  drink ;  those  whom,  delaying  in 
the  evening,  wine  inflames."  The  same  apphcation  of  D^inxp  occurs  in  the 
parallel  passage,  Prov.  xxiii.  29-32.  Strong  drink  difters  from  ivine  only 
by  including  all  intoxicating  liquors,  and  is  here  used  simply  as  a  parallel 
expression. — The  waste  of  time  here  censured  is  professed  and  gloried  in  by 
the  convivial  poets  of  heathen  antiquity.     Thus  Horace  says  of  himself, 

Est  qui  nee  veteris  pocula  ilassici, 
Nee  partem  solido  demere  de  die, 
Spernit. 

The  nocturnal  part  of  the  prophetic  picture  is  still  more  exactly  copied 
by  Propertius, 

Sie  noctem  patera,  sic  ducam  carmine,  donee 
Injiciat  radios  in  mea  vina  dies. 

Illustrative  parallels  from  modern  poetry  are  needless  though  abundant. 

12.  This  verse  completes  the  picture  begun  in  ver.  11,  by  adding  riotous 
mirth  to  drunkenness.  To  express  this  idea,  music  is  joined  with  wine  as 
the  source  of  their  social  enjoyment,  but  the  last  clause  shews  that  it  is  not 
mere  gaiety,  nor  even  the  excess  of  it,  that  is  here  intended  to  be  promi- 
nently set  forth,  but  the  folly  and  wickedness  of  merriment  at  certain  times, 
and  under  certain  circumstances,  especially  amidst  impending  judgments. 
The  general  idea  of  music  is  expressed  by  naming  several  instruments 
belonging  to  the  three  great  classes  of  stringed,  wind,  and  pulsatile.  The 
precise  form  and  use  of  each  cannot  be  ascertained,  and  is  of  no  importance 
to  the  meaning  of  the  sentence.  And  the  harp  and  the  viol,  the  tahret  (tam- 
bourine or  small  drum),  and  the  pipe  (or  flute),  a7id  xmne  (compose)  their 
feasts;  and  the  ivork  of  Jehovah  thei/  will  not  look  at  (or  regard),  and  the 
operation  of  his  hands  they  have  not  seen,  and  do  not  see. — The  Targum 
supplies  a  preposition  before  the  first  nouns,  and  makes /easis  the  subject  of 
the  sentence:  *'  With  harp  and  viol,  taliret  and  pipe,  and  wine,  are  their 
feasts."  The  Septuagint  and  Peshito,  "with  harp,  &c.,  they  drink  their 
wine."  The  Yulgate  supplies  the  preposition  before  feasts,  and  makes  the 
other  nouns  the  subject — "  Harp  and  viol,  &c.,  are  in  your  feasts."     Gese- 


134  ISAIAE  r.  [Ver.  13. 

nms  gives  the  same  sense,  but  supposes  DriW^P  to  be  used  adverbially  as  in 
Arabic.  Cocceius,  Ewald,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Henderson, 
make  it  the  nominative  after  the  substantive  verb  understood.  "Harp  and 
viol,  tabret  and  pipe,  and  wine,  are  their  feasts,"  in  these  consist  their 
social  entertainments.  Umbreit  and  Knobel  separate  the  last  two  words 
from  what  precedes  and  read,  "  there  is  harp  and  viol,  tabret  and  pipe,  and 
wine  is  their  drink."  The  general  sense  is  not  at  all  affected  b}'  these 
questions  of  construction.  According  to  Ewald  (Heb.  Gr.  §  379),  with 
whom  Hitzig  and  Umbreit  agree,  DH^J^P'P  is  not  a  plural,  but  the  form 
which  '■fi^^  derivatives  take,  even  in  the  singular,  before  certain  suffixes. 
The  loork  of  Jehovah  here  alluded  to  is  not  that  of  creation  (Umbreit),  nor 
the  law  (A-berbenel),  nor  the  design  and  use  of  providential  favours  (Calvin), 
but  his  dealings  with  the  people  in  the  May  of  judgment.  Compare  chap. 
X.  12,  xxii.  11,  xxviii.  21  ;  Hab.  i.  5,  iii.  2  ;  Ps.  Ixiv.  9,  and  especially  Ps. 
sxviii.  5,  from  which  the  expressions  here  used  seem  to  be  taken. 

13.  Here  again  the  sin  is  directly  followed  by  its  condign  punishment, 
drunkenness,  and  disregard  of  providential  warnings  by  captivity,  hunger, 
thirst,  and  general  mortality,  vers.  13,  14.  But  instead  of  the  language  of 
direct  prediction  (as  in  vers.  9,  10),  the  Prophet  here  employs  that  of  de- 
scription. Therefore  (for  the  reasons  given  in  the  two  preceding  verses)  my 
people  has  r/one  into  exile  (or  captivity)  for  tvant  of  kvowlcdge  (a  wilful 
ignorance  of  God's  providential  work  and  operation),  and  (heir  (jlory  (liter- 
ally his,  referring  to  the  singular  noun  people)  are  men  of  hunger  {i.  e. 
famished),  and  their  multitude  dry  (psirched)  with  thirst.  J.  D.  Micbaelis 
understands  captivity  as  a  figurative  term  for  miser}^  as  in  Job  xlii.  10  ; 
Ps.  xiv.  7.  But  the  context  seems  to  require  the  literal  interpretation. — 
Luther,  Gesenius,  and  Heudewerk  take  n?^  as  a  future,  which  is  not  to  be 
assumed  without  necessity.  Most  recent  writers  evade  the  difficulty  by 
rendering  it  in  the  present  tense.  The  only  natural  construction  is  the  old 
one  (Sept.  Vulg.  Calvin.  Vitr.  Barnes),  Avhich  gives  the  preterite  its  proper 
meaning,  and  either  supposes  the  future  to  be  here,  as  often  elsewhere, 
spoken  of  as  if  already  past  (J.  H.  Micbaelis),  or  understands  the  verse  as 
refeiTing  to  judgments  which  have  been  already  suflered,  not  at  one  time 
merely,  but  on  various  occasions,  as  if  he  had  said  "  this  is  the  true  cause 
of  the  captivity,  the  hunger,  and  the  thirst,  to  which  Israel  has  so  often  been 
subjected."  The  allusion  cannot  be  to  the  deportation  of  the  ten  tribes, 
who  are  never  called  God's  people. — Because  lie  hioaeth  not,  they  hnotu  not, 
and  /  kncio  not,  are  phrases  sometimes  used  where  we  saj^  iinatcares  or 
suddenly  (c.  q.  Ps.  xxxv.  8  ;  Sol.  Song  vi.  12 ;  Job  ix.  5),  Luther  so  under- 
stands niyT^T*?!?  here,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  J.  I).  Mich.  lios.  Ges. 
Ewald,  Hendew.  Henders.  Hitzig.  Umbreit.  But  as  this  phrase  is  not  so 
used  elsewhere,  and  in  Hosea  iv.  G,  means /o?-  icajit  of  knoioJedye,  as  the 
cause  of  ruin,  this  exact  and  ancient  version  is  correctly  retained  by  Lowth, 
De  Wette,  Maurer,  and  Knobel.  By  nup  and  131IDn  some  understand  the 
same  class  of  persons,  viz.  the  rich  and  noble  (Vitr.  Ges.  Ewald).  Others 
suppose  an  antithesis  between  the  nohilily  and  iha  jiopulacc  (Luther,  Lowth, 
Umbreit).  Either  of  these  verbal  explanations  is  consistent  with  the  import 
of  the  threatening  as  explained  already ;  but  the  most  probable  interpreta- 
tion seems  to  be  that  of  lOiobel,  who  supposes  tl;e  nndiitudc  or  mass  of  the 
inhabitants,  without  regard  to  rank,  to  be  called  the  flower  or  glory  of  the 
country,  as  Goldsmith  calls  the  peasantry  "a  nation's  pride."  For  ^DP 
vien,  J.  D.  Micbaelis  and  Lowth  read  '•r'P  dead,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Septuagint,  Targum,  Peshito,  and  Luther.     Hitzig  and  Efrald  read  MP  or 


Vek.  14,  15.]  ISAIAH  r.  135 

ntp  exhausted,  after  the  analogy  of  Deut.  xxxii.  2-1.  But  the  common  read- 
ing yields  a  perfectly  good  sense,  not  however  that  of  nobles  in  hunger  (Vitr. 
nobiles  fame)  but  simply  that  of  hungry  men,  or  starvelings,  as  Henderson 
expresses  it. 

14.  As  the  effect  of  the  preceding  judgments,  the  Prophet  now  describes 
a  general  mortality,  under  the  figure  of  the  grave,  as  a  ravenous  monster, 
gaping  to  devour  the  thoughtless  revellers.  Here,  as  in  ver.  13,  he  seems 
to  be  speaking  of  events  already  past.  Therefore  (because  famine  and  cap- 
tivity have  thus  prevailed)  the  grave  has  enlarged  herself  and  opened  her 
mouth  vjithout  measure,  and  doiun  goes  her  pomp  and  her  noise  and  her 
crowd  and  lie  that  rejoices  in  her. — It  is  equally  correct,  although  not  per- 
haps so  natural,  to  regard  |?"Vy  as  a  correlative  of  I?^  in  ver.  13,  both  re- 
lating to  the  sins  described  in  ver.  12,  as  the  occasion  of  the  strokes  in 
question. — The  noun  7\'^^  is  described  by  Gesenius  from  a  verb  ?5<^,  which 
he  supposes  to  have  been  synonymous  with  ^Fw'  to  he  holloio.  Hence  the 
noun  would  mean  an  excavation  and  in  particular  a  grave,  which  same  sense 
is  deduced  by  the  older  writers  from  ^^'^  to  ask  or  crave  (Prov.  xxx.  15, 16; 
Hab.  ii.  5).  The  sense  of  the  term  here  corresponds  almost  exactly  to  the 
poetical  use  of  grave  in  EngUsh,  as  denoting  one  gi'eat  receptacle,  to  which 
the  graves  of  individuals  may  be  conceived  as  inlets.  It  is  thus  that  we 
speak  of  a  voice  from  the  grave,  without  referring  to  the  burial-place  of  any 
individual.  The  German  Hdlle  (originally  Hdlile,  hollow)  and  the  old 
English  Hell,  corresponds  almost  exactly  to  the  Hebrew  word  ;  but  the  idea 
of  a  place  of  torment,  which  is  included  in  their  present  meaning,  is  derived 
from  the  peculiar  use  of  a3?];  (the  nearest  Greek  equivalent)  in  the  book  of 
Revelation,  and  belongs  to  the  Hebrew  word  only  by  implication  and  in 
certain  connections.  It  seems  to  be  a  needless  violation  of  good  taste  to 
introduce  the  Greek  word  Hades  (Lowth),  especially  if  treated  as  a  feminine 
noun  (Barnes).  For  additional  remarks  upon  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew 
word,  see  chap.  xiv.  9. — As  the  same  phrase  here  used  is  applied  by 
Habakkuk  (ii.  5)  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  "who  enlarged  his  desii'e  as  the 
grave,  and  was  like  death,  and  could  not  be  satisfied,"  most  of  the  modern 
writers  take  t^'?3  here  in  the  same  sense  of  appetite,  either  strictly  (Ewald) 
or  as  a  figure  for  the  craving  maw  of  a  devouring  monster  (Gesenius). 
Grotius  takes  VlJ'PJ  as  a  reflexive  pronoun,  for  which  there  is  no  distinct 
form  in  Hebrew,  and  by  the  grave's  enlarging  z'ise^ understands  a  poetical 
description  of  an  extraordinary  number  of  dead  bodies.  —  The  English 
Version,  following  the  Vulgate,  connects  1!?J  with  ^3,  which  is  forbidden  by 
the  accents  and  by  the  usage  of  the  verb  and  preposition. — As  the  suffix  in 
n^pj  must  refer  to  71i<5r',  the  simplest  construction  is  that  of  Hitzig,  who 
refers  the  other  pronouns  to  the  same  antecedent,  her  pomp  [i.  e.  the 
grave's),  her  croud,  her  noise,  so  called  because  they  were  to  have  an  end  in 
her,  as  men  doomed  to  die  are  called  meji  of  death,  2  Sam.  xix.  29.  By  T?SJ 
PI3  he  understands  the  man  exulting  over  her,  laughing  at  the  grave  and 
setting  death  at  defiance  (compare  chap,  xxviii.  15).  This  construction  is 
approved  by  Hendewerk,  but  rejected  by  the  other  recent  interpreters  for 
the  old  one,  which  refers  the  pronouns  to  Jerusalem  or  Zion  understood. — • 
The  words  rendered  pomp,  crowd,  and  noise,  are  as  variously  explained  as 
those  in  ver.  13  ;  but  all  agree  that  they  refer  to  the  voluptuous  revellers 
described  in  ver.  12. 

15.  To  the  description  of  the  punishment  the  Prophet  now  adds  that  of 
its  design  and  ultimate  effect,  to  wit,  the  humiliation  of  man  and  the  exalta- 


186  ISAIAH  V.  [Ver.  16,  17. 

tion  of  God,  vers.  15,  16.  The  foimer  is  here  foretold  in  terms  almost 
identical  with  those  of  chap.  ii.  9.  And  man  is  hrought  low,  and  man  is 
cast  doion  and  the  eyes  of  the  lofty  (or  haughty)  are  cast  doicn. — Most  of  the 
older  wi-iters  render  all  the  verbs  of  this  verse  in  the  future,  but  Junius, 
Cocceius,  and  the  moderns  in  the  present.  The  Vav  conversive  probably 
denotes  nothing  more  than  the  dependence  of  the  first  two  verbs  on  those 
of  the  preceding  verse,  as  expressive  of  a  subsequent  and  consequent  event. 
K  so,  the  sense,  though  not  the  form,  of  the  original  is  well  expressed  by 
Luther,  so  that  every  man  is  hiimhlcd,  etc.  That  the  verse  at  lea>t  includes 
a  reference  to  the  future,  is  clear  from  the  future  form  of  the  third  verb  ; 
and  that  this  is  not  in  contrast  with  the  past  time  of  the  first  clause,  may 
be  inferred  from  the  resumption  of  the  latter  fonn  in  ver.  16.  In  a  case  so 
dubious,  the  present  form  may  be  preferred,  as  really  including  both  the 
others,  or  at  least  consistent  with  them. — On  the  use  of  t^'*N  and  DIK,  see 
chap.  ii.  9.  Luther,  who  there  supposes  an  antithesis  between  the  terms, 
here  translates  them  both  by  every  man.  The  only  difierence  between  the 
two  interpretations,  with  respect  to  the  import  of  the  Prophet's  declaration, 
is  that  in  the  one  case  he  distinctly  mentions  two  great  classes  as  the  sub- 
jects of  humiliation,  while  in  the  other  he  confounds  them  all  together.  In 
either  case  the  sense  is  that  the  pride  of  man  shall  be  brought  low\  "  Let 
a  man  be  ever  so  high,  death  will  bring  him  low  ;  ever  so  mean,  death  will 
bring  him  lower."  (Matthew  Henry). 

16.  The  same  events  which  humble  man  exalt  God,  not  by  contrast 
merely,  but  by  the  positive  exhibition  of  his  attributes.  And  Jehocak  of 
Hosts  is  exalted  in  judf/nient  (in  the  exercise  of  justice),  and  the  Mit/hly,  the 
Holy  One,  is  sanctified  (shewn  to  be  a  Holy  God)  in  riyhteousness. — Most 
of  the  earlier  and  later  writers  follow  the  Vulgate  in  rendering  5^'i"ii3n  '?Nn 
simply  the  Holy  God.  But  the  accentuation  seems  to  indicate  a  more 
emphatic  sense.  The  English  version  follows  Calvin,  and  reads  God  uho  is 
holy.  Lowth  follows  Luther,  God  the  Holy  One.  ]jut  as  ^^  is  itself  a  sig- 
nificant title,  it  seems  best  to  regard  the  two  epithets  as  summing  up  the 
natural  and  moral  perfections  of  the  Deity.  So  Vitringa  (Dcus  ille  fortis, 
sanctus  ille)  and  Junius  (Deus  sanctus  fortissimus). — Hitzig  gives  *^"lp3  a 
reflexive  meaning  (sanctifies  himself),  which,  although  admissible,  is  need- 
less, and  not  favoured  by  the  parallelism. — In  jiidynient  and  in  riyhteous- 
ncss  are  used  precisel}'  in  the  same  sense,  chap.  i.  27.  With  respect  to  the 
tense  of  the  verbs,  see  the  foregoing  verse. 

17.  Having  paused,  as  it  were,  to  shew  the  ultimate  eft'ect  of  these  judg- 
ments, he  now  completes  the  description  of  the  judgments  themselves,  by 
predicting  the  conversion  of  the  lands  possessed  by  the  ungodly  Jews  into 
a  vast  pasture-ground,  occupied  only  by  the  flocks  of  wandering  shepherds 
from  the  neighbouring  deserts.  And  lainli^  shut  I  feed  as  [in)  their  ])ast>ire, 
and  the  irastes  of  t/te  fat  ones  shall  sojourners  (temporary  occupants)  devour . 
The  explanation  of  this  verse  as  a  promise,  that  the  lainJis  or  righteous 
should  succeed  to  the  possession  oii\\e  fat  ones  or  wealthy  sinners  (Targ. 
Jar.  Kim.  Calv.  Jun.  Cocc.  Vitr.)  is  scarcely  consistent  with  the  context, 
which  contains  an  unbroken  series  of  threatenings.  The  modern  inter- 
preters, who  foflow  Aben  Ezra  in  making  this  a  threatening  likewise,  apply 
it  either  figuratively  to  the  subjection  of  the  Holy  Land  to  the  Gentiles 
(Gill),  or  the  entrance  of  the  poor  on  the  possessions  of  the  rich  (Hende- 
werk),  or  literally  to  the  desolation  of  the  land  itself  (J.  D.  Mich.  Lowth, 
&c.). — Gesenius  refers  the  last  clause  to  tillage,  and  supposes  it  to  mean 
that  strangers  shall  reap  the  crops  of  the  forsaken  lands  ;  but  the  common 


Ver.  18.]  ISAIAH  V,  137 

interpretation  is  more  natural,  which  makes  both  clauses  have  respect  to 
pasturage. — Most  writers  make  Q'''?^  a  synonj'nie  of  Q"''?^  strangers  ;  but 
Cocceius  treats  it  as  an  adjective  agreeing  with  ^''Ef'^?,  "  and  strange  lambs 
shall  devour,"  &c.  Hitzig  construes  it  still  more  strictly  as  a  participle, 
"  and  devour  wandering  the  wastes,"  &c.  But  the  verb  should  then  be 
taken  in  its  usual  sense  of  sojouniin;/,  residing  for  a  time,  in  reference  either 
to  the  shepherds  or  their  sheep. — The  Vulgate  explains  DTIO  ri'n'^n  to  mean 
fat  wastes,  i.  e.  deserts  become  fertile  (desorta  in  ubertatem  versa) ;  the 
French  version,  deserts  where  the  flocks  grew  fat ;  Clericus,  still  more 
strangely,  the  flocks  themselves  which  fed  in  the  desert,  and  should  there- 
fore be  devoured  by  strangers,  while  the  lambs  were  ledas  usual  to  pas- 
ture by  their  Babylonian  captors.  J.  D.  Michaehs  takes  ^''^1'?  i"  ^^^  sense 
of  riiiiit<,  here  put  for  that  which  grows  among  them  ;  but  the  word  no 
doubt  means  waste  fields,  as  in  Jer.  xxv.  11,  Ezek.  xxv.  13.  Hitzig  sup- 
poses Q'^np  to  denote  fat  sheep  or  rams,  as  in  the  only  other  place  where 
it  occurs  (Ps.  Ixvi.  15) ;  but  most  interpreters  regard  it  as  a  figure  for 
the  rich  and  prosperous,  like  fl^'^:"''?.^''!',  Ps.  xxii.  30  (compare  Qn\30V''P,  Ps. 
Ixxviii.  31). — The  phrase  Q^?7?  li^s  been  variously  explained  to  mean  as 
it  was  said  to  them  (Targ.),  juxta  diictum  suuw,  i.e.  without  restraint  (J.  H. 
Mich.  Lowth),  accordinr/  to  their  order,  i.e.  their  usual  order  (Vulg.),  as 
the;/  are  driven  (Aben  Ezra,  J.  D.  Mich.).  But  the  modern  interpreters 
take  "1?"^  here  and  Micah  ii.  12  in  the  sense  of  pa.'ittire. — The  conjectural 
emendation  of  the  text  by  changing  D''1J  into  D^13  (Capellus,  Bauer)  or 
CHJ  (Durell,  Seeker,  Lowth,  Ewald),  is  of  course  superfluous. 

18.  The  series  of  woes  is  now  resumed  and  continued  without  any  inter- 
ruption, vers.  18-23.  Even  the  description  of  the  punishment,  instead 
of  being  added  directly  to  that  of  the  sin,  as  in  vers.  9  and  13,  is  postponed 
until  the  catalogue  of  sins  is  closed,  and  then  subjoined  in  a  general  form, 
ver.  24.  This  verse  contains  the  third  woe,  having  reference  to  presump- 
tuous sinners  who  defy  God's  judgments.  They  are  here  represented  not 
as  drawn  away  by  sin  (James  i.  14),  but  as  laboriously  di-awing  it  to  them 
by  soliciting  temptation,  drawing  it  out  by  obstinate  persistency  in  evil 
and  contempt  of  divine  threatenings.  Woe  to  the  drawers  of  iniquity  (those 
drav/ing,  those  who  draw  it)  witJi  cords  of  vanity  and  sin  (a  parallel  expres- 
sion to  iniquity)  as  (or  as  with)  a  cart-rope,  i.e.  a  strong  rope,  implying 
difliculty  and  exertion. — The  interpretation  which  supposes  iniquity  and  sin 
to  mean  calamity  and  punishment  (Menochius,  Gesenius,  Ewald,  Hendewerk, 
Henderson),  although  it  seems  to  make  the  sentence  clearer,  impairs  its 
strength,  and  takes  the  words  in  an  unusual  and  doubtful  sense.  Knobel 
objects  that  men  cannot  be  said  to  draw  sin  with  cords  of  sin.  But  even 
this  figure  is  perfectly  consistent  both  with  reason  and  experience.  Or 
vanity  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  falsehood  or  sophistical  reasoning  by 
which  men  persuade  themselves  to  sin  (Calv.  Vitr.  Cler.).  The  Targum, 
followed  by  Jarchi,  supposes  an  antithesis  between  the  beginnings  of  sin 
and  its  later  stages,  slight  cords  and  cart-ropes.  But  this  confounds  the 
sin  itself  with  the  instrument  by  which  they  dx-aw  it ;  and  the  same  objec- 
tion lies  against  the  Syriac  and  Vulgate  versions,  which  make  drawing  out, 
or  protracting,  the  primary  idea,  and  also  against  Houbigant's  and  Lowth's 
interpretation,  which  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  process  of  rope-making. 
Luther's  idea,  that  the  verse  relates  to  combination  among  wicked  men, 
"  who  bind  themselves  together"  to  do  m'schief,  is  at  variance  with  the 
usage  of  the  Hebrew  verb. — The  true  interpretation  of  the  verse,  which 
supposes  the  act  described  to  be  that  of  laboriously  drawing  sin  to  one's 


138  ISAIAH  V.  [Ver.  19-21. 

self,  perhaps  with  the  accessory  idea  of  drawing  it  out  hy  perseverance,  is 
suhstantially  given  hy  Kimchi,  Yitringa,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Hitzig,  Manrer, 
and  Umhreit. — The  various  readings,  nuyn  for  m3J?3  (Bib.  Sonciu.,  14 
MSS.),  ^bnDfor^^nnn  (l  MS.,  Sept.  Aq.  Sym.  Theod.),  and  rh^V  for  n^JV 
(Olshausen,  Observ.  Crit.,  p.  8,  Henderson  ad  he),  are  all  unnecessary, 
and  inferior  to  the  common  text. 

19.  The  degree  of  their  presumption  and  depravity  is  now  evinced  by 
a  citation  of  their  language  with  respect  to  God's  threatened  judgments, 
an  ironical  expression  of  impatience  to  behold  them,  and  an  implied  refusal 
to  beheve  without  experience.  The  sentence  is  continued  from  the  verse 
preceding,  and  further  describes  the  sinners  there  denounced,  as  the  ones 
sayiiif/  (those  who  say),  let  him  speed,  let  him  hasten  his  u-oik  (his  providen- 
tial work,  as  in  ver.  12),  that  we  may  sec,  and  let  the  counsel  (providential 
plan  or  purpose)  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  (which,  in  the  mouth  of  these 
blasphemers,  seems  to  be  a  taunting  irony)  draw  nigh  and  come,  and  ice 
will  hww  {i.  e.  according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom  and  the  parallel  expression) 
that  we  may  Icnow  what  it  is,  or  that  it  is  a  real  purpose,  and  that  he  is 
able  to  accomplish  it.  Compare  Jer.  xvii.  15  ;  Amos  v.  18,  vi.  13  ;  Isa. 
XXX.  10,  11,  xxviii.  15  ;  2  Peter  iii.  4. — The  intransitive  construction  of 
the  first  clause,  "  let  him  speed,  let  his  work  make  haste  "  (Hilzig,  Ewald, 
Umbreit),  may  be  justified  by  usage,  and  makes  the  clauses  more  exactly 
parallel ;  but  the  other  is  preferred,  by  almost  all  interpreters,  ancient  and 
modern. — Henderson  explains  this  verse  as  "the  only  construction  which 
could  be  put  upon  the  conduct  of  the  wicked  Jews ;  "  but  the  reference 
seems  to  be  to  actual  expression  of  the  wish  in  vrords,  and  not  ^in  action 
merely. — For  the  form  nt^uri.  see  Gesenius,  Heb.  Gr.  §  48,  3. 

20.  The  fourth  woe  is  against  those  who  subvert  moral  distinctions  and 
confound  good  and  evil,  an  irlea  expressed  first  in  literal  terms  and  then 
by  t\Y0  obvious  and  intelligible  figures.  Woe  unto  the  (persons)  saywij 
(those  who  say)  to  evil  cjood  and  to  good  evil,  (who  address  them  by  these 
titles  or  call  them  so),  j'Uttiny  darhness  for  light  and  light  for  darJcness, 
ptUtivg  hitter  for  sweet  and  siceet  for  litter.  These  are  here  combined,  not 
merely  as  natural  opposites,  but  also  as  common  figures  for  truth  and 
falsehood,  right  and  wrong.  See  chap.  ii.  5;  Prov.  ii.  13;  Eccles.  ii.  13; 
James  iii.  11.  A  kindred  figure  is  employed  by  Juvenal  (qui  nigrum  in 
Candida  vertunt,  Sat.  iii.  3).  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  apply  this  verse  par- 
ticularly to  unrighteous  judges,  who  are  mentioned  in  ver.  23;  but  a  more 
general  sense  is  here  required  by  the  context. 

21.  Here,  as  in  the  foregoing  verse,  one  sin  follows  another  without 
anj'  intervening  description  of  punishment.  This  arrangement  may  imply 
a  very  intimate  connection  between  the  sins  thus  brought  into  juxlapo.si- 
tion.  As  presumptuous  sin,  such  as  vers.  18,  19  describe,  implies  a  per- 
version of  the  moral  sense,  such  as  ver.  20  describes,  so  the  latter  may  be 
said  to  presuppose  an  undue  reliance  upon  human  reason,  which  is  else- 
where contrasted  with  the  fear  of  God  (Prov.  iii.  7),  and  is  indeed  incom- 
patible with  it.  Woe  unto  the  wise  in  their  eyes  [i.  e.  their  own  eyes,  which 
cannot  be  otherwise  expressed  in  the  Hebrew)  and  before  their  own  faces 
(in  their  own  sight  or  estimation)  prudent,  intelligent,  a  sjiionyme  of  icise. 
The  sin  reproved,  as  Calvin  well  observes,  is  not  mere  frivolous  self- 
conceit,  but  that  delusive  estimate  of  human  wisdc  m  (fallax  sapientiaB 
spectrum)  which  may  coexist  with  modesty  of  manners  and  a  high  degree 
of  real  intellectual  merit,  but  which  must  be  abjured,  not  only  on  account 
of  its  effects,  but  also  as  involving  the  worst  form  of  pride. 


Vek.  22,  2i.j  ISAIAE  V.  139 

22.  The  sixth  woe,  like  the  second,  is  directed  against  drunkards,  but 
•with  special  reference  to  drunken  judges,  vers.  22,  23.  The  tone  of  this 
verse  is  sarcastic,  from  its  using  terms  which  commonlj'  express  not  only 
strength  but  courage  and  heroic  spirit,  in  application  to  exploits  of  drunk- 
enness. There  may  indeed,  be  a  particular  allusion  to  a  species  of  fool- 
hardiness  and  brutal  ambition  not  uncommon  in  our  own  times,  leading 
men  to  shew  the  vigour  of  their  frames  by  mad  excess,  and  to  seek  emi- 
nence in  this  way  no  less  eagerly  than  superior  spirits  seek  true  glory. 
Of  such  it  may  indeed  be  said,  their  god  is  their  belly  and  they  glory  in 
their  shame.  Woe  to  the  mi<jhty  men  or  lieroes,  (who  arc  heroes  only)  to 
drivh  wine,  and  men  of  strength  to  mingle  strong  drinJc,  i.  e.  according  to 
the  usual  interpretation,  to  mix  wine  with  spices,  thereby  making  it  more 
stimulating  and  exciting,  a  practice  spoken  of  by  Pliny  and  other  ancient 
WTiters,  (See  also  Sol.  Song  viii.  2.)  Hitzig  (with  whom  Hendewerk 
agrees  on  this  point)  denies  that  this  was  an  oriental  usage,  and  under- 
stands the  Prophet  as  referring  to  the  mixture  of  wine  with  water.  But 
see  Gesenius's  Thesaurus,  p.  808.  In  either  case  the  mixing  is  here 
mentioned  only  as  a  customary  act  in  the  offering  or  drinking  of  liquors, 
just  as  maliivg  tea  might  be  mentioned  as  a  common  act  of  modern  hospi- 
talit}',  whatever  part  of  the  preparatory  process  the  phrase  may  properly 
denote. 

23.  The  absence  of  the  interjection  shews  that  this  is  a  continuation 
of  the  woe  begun  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  thus  explains  the  Prophet's 
recurrence  to  a  sin  which  he  had  denounced  already  (vers.  11,  12)  as  pro- 
ductive of  general  inconsideration,  but  which  he  now  describes  as  leading 
to  injustice,  and  therefore  as  a  vice  peculiarly  disgraceful  in  a  magistrate. 
The  effect  here  ascribed  to  drunkenness  is  not  merely  that  of  incapacitating 
judges  for  the  discharge  of  their  official  functions,  but  that  of  tempting 
them  to  make  a  trade  of  justice,  with  a  view  to  the  indulgence  of  this 
appetite.  Justifying  {i.  c.  acquitting,  clearing,  a  forensic  term)  the  guilty 
(not  simply  the  wicked  in  a  general  sense,  but  the  wrong-doer  in  a  judicial 
sense) /'or  the  sake  (literally  as  the  result)  of  a  bribe,  and  the  righteousness  of 
the  righteous  (^.  e.  the  right  of  the  innocent  or  injured  party,  or  his  charac- 
ter as  such  tliey  ivill  take  from  him  (i.  e.  they  do  and  will  do  so  still).  The 
transition  from  the  plural  to  the  singular  in  this  clause,  and  from  the  par- 
ticiple to  the  future,  are  fiimiliar  idioms  of  Hebrew  syntax.  The  pronoun 
at  the  end  may  be  understood  either  collectively  or  distributively, //-om  each 
of  them.     (See  Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  143,  4.) 

24.  To  the  series  of  sins  enumerated  in  the  six  preceding  verses  there  is 
now^  added  a  general  description  of  their  punishment.  In  the  first  clause, 
the  Prophet  represents  the  divine  visitation,  with  its  sudden,  rapid,  irre- 
sistible effect,  by  the  familiar  figure  of  chaff  and  dry  grass  sinking  in  the 
flames.  In  the  second  clause  he  passes  from  simile  to  metaphor,  and 
speaks  of  the  people  as  a  tree  whose  root  is  rotten  and  its  growth  above 
ground  pulverised.  In  the  third,  he  drops  both  figures,  and  in  literal  ex- 
pressions summarily  states  the  cause  of  their  destruction.  Therefore  (be- 
cause of  the  abounding  of  these  sins)  as  a  tongue  ff  fire  (/.  e.  a  flame,  so 
called  from  its  shape  and  motion.  Acts  ii.  3  ;  1  Kings  xviii.  38)  devours 
chaff  (or  stubble),  and  as  ignited  grass  falls  away,  their  root  shall  Ic  as 
rottenness,  cmd  (heir  hlossom  as  fine  dust  shall  go  up  [i.  e.  be  taken  uj)  and 
scattered  by  the  wind).  For  they  have  rejected  the  laxv  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts, 
and  the  uord  (the  revealed  will)  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  (hey  have  treated' 
with  contempt. — Montanus  explains    Hp^''    as  a  transitive  verb   (glumam 


140  ISAIAH  V.  [Ver.  25. 

deliilitat),  and  the  English  Version  (followed  hy  Lowth  and  Augusti)  goes 
still  further  by  giving  it  the  sense  of  consuming^  which  it  neyer  has.  Cal- 
vin, followed  by  Vitringa,  makes  it  passive,  and  renders  '^'^yp_.  as  an  abla- 
tive (a  tlannna  dissolvitur).  Gesenius,  in  his  version,  gives  the  verb  its 
usual  intransitive  or  neuter  sense,  but  supplies  a  preposition  before  the 
noun,  or  takes  it  as  a  noun  of  place  (in  der  Flamniu  zusammensinkt).  In 
his  Tjoxicon,  however,  he  adopts  the  construction  first  proposed  by  Cocceius, 
Avhich  supposes  the  two  words  to  be  in  regimen,  and  to  mean  literally 
ijrass  of  flame,  i.  c.  flaming  or  ignited  grass. — J.  D.  Michaelis  endeavours 
to  identify  the  figures  of  the  first  and  second  clause  by  reading  ashes  instead 
0^  rottenness  ;  but  such  transitions  are  too  common  to  excite  surprise. — The 
Septuagint  renders  H"!?  anJog,  the  Vulgate  f/ermcn,  and  others  variously 
bud,  blossom,  flower,  &c.  It  seems  to  be  intended  to  express  whatever 
could  here  be  put  in  antithesis  to  root,  as  in  the  proverbial  phrase  root  and 
hrandi,  denoting  the  whole  tree,  above  ground  and  below. — For  the  true 
sense  of  the  last  verb  in  this  verse,  see  chap.  i.  4.  Its  use  in  this  connec- 
tion is  a  strong  proof  that  it  cannot  mean  provoke,  although  the  Seventy  so 
translate  it  even  here. — The  collocation  of  the  subject  and  the  object  in 
the  first  clause  is  unusual.  SeeEwald's  Heb.  Gr.  §  555.  For  the  syntax 
of  the  infinitive  and  future  in  the  same  clause,  see  Gesen.  §  129,  llem.  2. 

25.  Having  declared  in  the  foregoing  verse  what  should  be,  he  recalls  to 
mind  what  has  already  been.     As  if  he  had  said,  God  will  visit  you  for 
these  things  ;  nay,  he  has  done  so  already,  but  without  reclaiming  you  or 
satisfying  his  own  justice,  for  which  purpose  further  strokes  are  &till  re- 
quired.    The  previous  inflictions  here  referred  to  are  described  as  a  stroke 
from  Jehovah's  outstretched  hand,  so  violent  as  to  shake  the  mountains, 
and  so  destructive  as  to  fill  the  streets  with  corpses. — Therefore  (referring 
to  the  last  clause  of  ver.  24)  the  auijer  of  Jehovah   has  burned  Of/ainst  his 
people  (literally  ///  them,  i.e.  in  the  very  midst  of  them  as  a  consuming  fire), 
aiid  lie  stretched  forth  his  hand  ar/ainst  them   (literally  Jiim,  referring  to  the 
singular  noun  people),  and  smote  them,  and  the  mon)ttains  trembled,  and  their 
carcahs  (put  collectively  for  corpses)  uas  like  sueepinif  (refuse,  filth)  in  the 
inidst  of  the  streets.     In  all  this  (/.  e.  even  after  all  this,  or  notwithstanding 
all  this)  his  anger  has  not  turned  bach  (abandoned  its  object,  or  regarded  it 
as  already  gained),  and  still  his  hand  is  stretched  out  (to  inflict  new  judg- 
ments).— The  future  form  given  to  the  verb  by  Clericus  is  altogether  arbi- 
trary.    Most  of  the  later  writers  follow  Luther  in  translating  them   as 
presents.     But  if  this  verse  is  not  descriptive  of  the  past,  as  distinguished 
from   the  present   and  the  future,   the  Hebrew  language  is  incapable  of 
making  any  such  distinction.    This  natural  meaning  of  the  language  (which 
no  modern  version  except  Ewald's  fully  expresses)  is  confirmed  by  the  last 
clause,  which  evidently  introduces  something  posterior  to   what  is  here 
described.     It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose,  although  it  is  most  probable, 
that  what  is  here  described  had  actually  taken   place   before  the  Prophet 
wrote.     In  this,  as  in  some  other  cases,  he  may  be  supposed   to  take  his 
stand  between  a  nearer  and  a  more  remote  futurity,  the  former  being  then 
of  course  described  as  past. — The  trembling  of  the  mountains  is  referred 
by  Hendewerk    to   the   earthquake  mentioned  Amos  i.    1,  Zech.  xiv.  5. 
Jarchi  explains  it  of  the  fall  of  kings  and  princes.     Junius  makes  the  Pro- 
phet say  that  if  such  strokes  had   fallen  upon  mountains  theif  would  have 
trembled. — J.  ]).  Michaelis  supposes  what  is  said  of  the  dead  bodies  to  be 
applicable  only  to  a  pestilence.     It  is  most  probable,  however,  that  these 
strong  expressions  were  intended  simply  to  convey  the  idea  of  violent  com- 


Yer.  2G,  27. :  ISAIAH  V.  Ill 

motion  and  a  general  mortality.  There  is  no  need  of  referring  what  is 
said  exclusively  of  evils  suffered  in  the  days  of  Joash  and  Amaziah  (Junius) 
or  in  those  of  Ahaz  (Yitriuga),  since  the  Prophet  evidently  means  to  say 
that  all  pyccediuij  jiuhjnients  had  heen  insufficient  and  that  more  were  still 
required. — The  act  expressed  by  2i^*  is  not  so  much  that  of  tarning  away 
as  that  of  tiirniiiif  back  or  ceasing  to  pursue.  (See  Hengstenberg  on  Ps. 
ix.  4,  18).  Saadias  and  Kimchi  derive  nniD3  from  HDD  to  cut  or  tear,  in 
which  they  are  followed  by  Calvin  (mutilum),  Junius  (saccisum),  and  the 
English  version  (torn).  But  all  the  ancient  versions  and  most  modern 
ones  make  3  a  preposition,  and  the  best  lexicographers  derive  the  noun 
from  HID  to  sweep. — Ii  the  midst  of  the  streets  may  be  taken  strictly  to  de- 
note m  the  middle  (Calvin :  in  medio  viarum),  or  more  indefinitely  in, 
wi(hi/>.      Vide  supra,  yer.  8. 

2(5.  The  foi'mer  stroke  having  been  insufficient,  a  more  effectual  one  is 
now  impending,  in  predicting  which  the  prophet  does  not  confine  himself 
to  figurative  language,  but  presents  the  approaching  judgment  in  its  proper 
form,  as  the  invasion  and  ultimate  subjection  of  the  country  by  a  foi'midable 
enemy,  vers.  26—30.  In  this  verse  he  describes  the  approach  of  these 
invaders  as  invited  by  Jehovah,  to  express  which  idea  he  employs  two 
figures  not  uncommon  in  prophecy,  that  of  a  signal-pole  or  flag,  and  that 
of  a  hiss  or  whistle,  in  obedience  to  which  the  last  clause  represents  the 
enemy  as  rapidly  advancing.  And  he  raises  a  signal  to  the  nations  from 
afar,  and  hisses  (or  whistles)  ybr  him  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  ;  and  hejiold 
in  haste,  swift  he  shall  come. — Here  as  in  yer.  25,  the  older  writers  under- 
stand the  verbs  as  futures,  but  the  later  ones  as  presents.  The  verbs  in 
the  last  clause  have  Yav  prefixed,  but  its  couversive  power  commonly  de- 
pends upon  a  future  verb  preceding,  which  is  wanting  here.  These  verbs 
appear  to  form  a  link  between  the  past  time'.of  ver.  25  and  the  unambiguous 
future  at  the  end  of  this.  First,  he  smote  them,  but  without  effect.  Then, 
he  raises  a  signal  and  ivhistles.  Lastly,  the  enemy  thus  summoned  will 
come  swiftly. — The  singular  suffix  in  1?  has  been  variously  explained  as  re- 
ferring to  the  king  whose  subjects  had  been  previously  mentioned  (Targ. 
Jon.),  or  to  the  army  as  a  whole,  which  had  been  just  described  as  Gen- 
tiles, heathen  (Knob.  Hitzig),  or  to  the  ruling  power  under  whose  banners 
the  other  nations  fought  (Yitr.  Hendewerk),  or  simply  to  one  of  the  nations 
previously  mentioned  (Gesen.  Umbr.) — The  nation  meant  has  been  also 
variously  explained  to  be  the  Romans  (Theodoret :  roy;  'P^f^aicvg  br',  toutm^j 
fivi^i),  the  Babylonians  (Clericus),  and  the  Assyrians  (Gesen.  Ewald,  &c.). 
But  this  very  disagreement,  or  rather  the  indefinite  expressions  which  occa- 
sion it,  shew  that  the  terms  of  the  description  were  designed  to  be  more 
comprehensive.  The  essential  idea  is  that  the  previous  lighter  judgments 
should  be  followed  by  another  more  severe  and  efficacious,  by  invasion  and 
subjection.  The  terms  are  most  emphaticall}'  applicable  to  the  Romans. — 
The  hissing  or  whistling,  Hitzig  supposes  to  have  reference  to  some  mode 
of  alluring  birds  (Hos.  xi.  11;  Zech.  x.  8);  but  the  common  and  more 
probable  opinion  is  that  it  alludes  to  the  ancient  mode  of  swarming  bees, 
described  at  length  by  Cyril.  (See  his  words  as  given  by  Bochart,  Hieroz. 
p.  506). — In  the  last  clause  a  substantive  meaning  haste,  and  an  adjective 
meaning  ligJit,  are  both  used  adverbially  in  the  sense  of  swiftly. 

27.  The  enem}',  whose  approach  was  just  foretold,  is  now  described  as 
not  only  prompt  and  rapid,  but  complete  in  his  equipments,  firm  and 
vigorous,  ever  wakeful,  impeded  neither  by  the  accidents  of  the  way  nor  by 
defective  preparation.     There  is  no  one  faint  (or  exhausted)  a^id  there  is  no 


142  ISAIAH  r.  [Ver.  28,  29. 

one  sUimUing  (or  faultering)  among  them  (literally  in  him).  He  (the 
enemy,  considered  as  an  individual)  sleeps  not,  and  he  slumbci's  not,  ami 
the  girdle  of  his  loins  is  not  opc7ied  (or  loosed),  and  the  lafchet  (string  or 
band  of  his  shoes  (or  sandals)  is  not  broken. — The  English  Version  follows 
Calvin  in  translating  all  the  verbs  as  futures.  The  Vulgate  supplies  the 
present  in  the  first  clause,  and  makes  the  others  future.  But  as  the  whole  is 
evidently  one'descriptiou,  the  translation  should  bo  uniform  ;  and  as  the  pre- 
terite and  future  forms  are  intermingled,  both  scorn  to  be  here  used  for  the 
present,  which  is  given  by  Luther  and  most  of  the  late  writers. — The  last 
clause  is  understood  by  Henderson  and  others  as  denoting  that  they  do  not 
disarm  or  undress  themselves  for  sleep.  But  as  the  last  verb  alway  de- 
notes violent  separation,  it  is  most  probable  that  this  whole  clause  relates 
to  accidental  interruptions  of  the  march.  The  question  raised  by  Hende- 
werk  and  Henderson  as  to  the  kind  of  girdle  here  referred  to,  is  of  no  exe- 
geticul  importance,  as  it  is  only  joined  with  shoes  to  I'epresent  the  dress  in 
general. — In  him  may  be  either  put  collectively  for  in  them,  or  as  J.  D. 
Michaelis  supposes,  may  refer  to  the  army ;  and  Hendewerk  accordingly 
hns  it  slumbers  not,  Sec. — The  distinction  made  by  some  between  D"IJ*  and 
']^''''.  (Cocceius  :  non  dormitat,  multo  minus  dormit)  is  unnecessary  here, 
where  the  verbs  seem  to  be  used  as  mere  poetical  equivalents, 

28.  The  description  is  continued,  but  with  special  reference  to  their  wea- 
pons and  their  means  of  conveyance.  For  the  former,  bows  and  arrows  are 
here  put ;  and  for  the  latter,  horses  and  chariots  (see  ch.  ii.  7).  Whose 
arrows  are  sharpened  and  all  his  boirs  bent  (literally  trod  upon)  ;  the  hoofs  of 
his  horses  Wee  flint  (or  adamant)  are  reckoned,  and  his  wheels  like  a  vJtirl- 
vind,  in  rapidity  and  violence  of  motion. — Gesenius,  Henderson,  and  others, 
omit  the  relative  at  the  beginning,  and  Junius  renders  it  as  a  conjunction 
(quia).  But  it  serves  to  make  the  connection  vnih  the  verse  preceding 
much  more  close  and  sensible. — As  D''>13Jp,  like  the  Latin  acutae,  is  a  par- 
ticiple, the  common  version  (sharp)  does  not  fully  express  its  meaning. 
Indeed,  from  what  is  said  of  the  bows  immediately  afterwards,  the  pro- 
minent idea  would  seem  to  be  not  that  the  arrows  were  sharp,  but  that  they 
were  already  sharpened,  implying  present  readiness  for  use. — The  bows  be- 
ing trod  iipon  has  reference  to  the  ancient  mode  of  stringing,  or  rather  of 
shooting,  the  bow  being  large,  and  made  of  metal  or  hard  wood.  Arrian  saj'S 
expressly,  in  describing  the  use  of  the  bow  by  the  Indian  infantry  "  placing 
it  on  the  ground,  and  stepping  on  it  with  the  left  foot,  so  they  shoot  {c'jtu; 
inro^ivovsi),  drawing  the  string  back  to  a  great  distance."  (See  the  original 
passage  in  Henderson.) — The  passive  verb  "l^^^'O.?  cannot  be  accurately  ren- 
dered, they  resemble  (Gesen.  Hitzig),  nor  even  they  are  to  be  counted  (Augusti, 
De  Wette),  but  means  they  are  counted  (Cocceius,  Ewald),  the  preterite  form 
implying  that  they  had  been  tried  and  proved  so. — The  future  form  given 
to  this  whole  verse  by  Calvin  and  Junius,  and  to  the  last  clause  by  Lowth 
and  Barnes,  greatly  impairs  its  unity  and  force  as  a  description. 

29.  By  a  sudden  transition,  the  enemy  are  here  represented  as  lions,  roar- 
ing, growling,  seizing  their  prajs  and  carrying  it  ofi'  without  resistance  ;  a 
lively  picture,  especially  to  an  oriental  reader,  of  the  boldness,  fierceness, 
quickness,  and  success  of  the  attack  here  threatened.  He  has  a  roar  like 
the  lioness,  and  he  shall  roar  like  the  young  lions,  and  shall  groivl,  and  seize 
the  prey,  and  secure  it,  none  delivering  {i.e.  and  none  can  rescue  it). — Coc- 
ceius, Vitringa,  and  the  modern  writers,  use  the  present  tense,  as  in  the 
foregoing  verses,  to  preserve  the  unity  of  the  description.  But  there  the 
preterite  and  future  forms  are  mingled,  whereas  here  the  future  is  alone  used, 


Ver.  30.]  ISAIAR  V.  143 

unless  the  textual  reading  JNCi'1  be  retained,  and  even  then  the  Vav  may  be 
regarded  as  conversive.  Besides,  this  seems  to  be  the  turning-point  between 
description  and  prediction.  Having  told  what  the  enemy  is,  he  now  tells 
what  he  will  do.  It  seems  best,  therefore,  to  adopt  the  future  form  used 
by  the  ancient  versions,  by  Calvin,  and  by  Luther,  who  is  fond  of  the  pre- 
sent, and  employs  it  in  the  two  foregoing  verses. — Most  of  the  modern 
writers  follow  Bochart  in  explaining  i^'^^'P  to  denote  the  lioness,  which  is  the 
more  natural  in  this  case  from  the  mention  of  the  young  lions  immediately 
afterwards.  The  image,  as  Henderson  suggests,  may  be  that  of  a  lioness 
attended  by  her  whelps,  or  rather  by  her  young  ones  which  are  old  enough 
to  roar  and  seek  their  prey  (see  Ezek.  xix.  2,  3,  and  Gesenius,  s.  v.). — The 
meaning  of '^^'?.2.!  is  not  "he  shall  embrace"  (Vulgate  amplexabitur),  nor  "ho 
shall  gather  spoil"  (Calvin  spolia  corradet),  nor  "  he  shall  let  it  go"  in  sport 
before  devouring  it  (Luzatto) ;  but  he  shall  carry  it  off  safe,  place  it  in 
safety,  or  secure  it  (Esvald  :  tobt  und  nimmt  den  Raub  und  sichert  ihn  ohne 
Better). 

30.  The  roaring  of  the  lion  suggests  the  roaring  of  the  sea,  and  thus  a 
beautiful  transition  is  effected  from  the  one  figure  to  the  other,  in  describing 
the  catastrophe  of  all  these  judgments.  Israel  is  threatened  by  a  raging  sea, 
and  looking  landward,  sees  it  growing  dark  there,  until,  after  a  brief  fluctua- 
tion, the  darkness  becomes  total.  And  he  (the  enemy)  shall  roar  against 
Mm  (Israel)  in  that  day  like  the  roaring  of  a  sea.  And  he  shall  look  to  the 
land,  and  behold  darhness  !  Anguish  and  light  !  It  is  dark  in  the  clouds 
thereof  (/.  e.  of  the  land,  the  skies  above  it). — The  Vulgate,  Peshito,  and  a 
great  majority  of  modern  writers,  disregard  the  Masoretic  accents,  and  con- 
nect "^Sj'n  with  IV,  and  11^»  with  ^??'n.  Knobel  appears  to  be  the  first  who 
observed  that  this  arrangement  involves  the  necessity  of  vowel-changes  also, 
as  we  must  then  read  "i^  for  IV  and  It^^}  for  "il^l.  Those  who  adopt  this 
interpretation,  either  read  darkness  of  anguish  (Vulgate,  Hitzig,  Knobel)  or 
darkness  and  anguish  (Eng.  Vs.),  or  darkness,  anguish  (Hendewerk).  Vit- 
ringa  still  construes  IIJ^  separately,  "  as  for  the  light,"  but  the  others  con- 
nect it  with  "^^'H  directly,  "  and  the  light  is  dark,"  &c.  The  only  objection 
to  the  Masoretic  interpretation  (which,  although  retained  by  Cocceius,  Ro- 
senmiiller,  Gesenius,  and  Maurer,  is  not  the  common  one,  as  Hitzig  repre- 
sents), is  the  alleged  incongruity  of  making  light  and  avguish  alternate, 
instead  of  light  and  darkness,  a  rhetorical  nicety  unworthy  of  attention 
where  there  is  at  best  but  a  choice  of  difficulties.  Henderson  says,  indeed, 
that  it  is  "  quite  at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  the  text,  which  requires  a  state 
,  of  profound  darkness,  without  any  relieving  glimpses  of  light."  But  it  is 
just  as  easy  to  affirm  that  "the  spirit  of  the  text"  requires  the  other  con- 
struction, which  is,  moreover,  recommended  by  its  antiquity,  traditional 
authority,  simplicity,  poetical  beauty,  and  descriptive  truth. — On  the  autho- 
rity of  the  Aldine  and  Complutensian  text  of  the  Septuagint,  Lowth  supposes 
an  omission  in  the  Hebrew,  which  he  thus  supplies,  "and  these  shall  look 
to  the  heaven  upward  and  down  to  the  earth."  But,  as  Barnes  has  well 
observed,  "there  is  no  need  of  supposing  the  expression  defective.  The 
Prophet  speaks  of  the  vast  multitude  that  was  coming  up,  as  a  sea.  On 
that  side  there  was  no  safety.  It  was  natural  to  speak  of  the  other  direction 
as  the  land  or  shore,  and  to  say  that  the  people  would  look  there  for  safety. 
But,  says  he,  there  would  be  no  safety  there ;  all  would  be  darkness."  Hitzig 
supplies  the  supposed  effect  by  putting  "11^<  in  antithesis  to  Yl^,  '  one  looks 
to  the  earth,  and  behold  the  darkness  of  distress,  and  to  the  light  {i.  e.  the 
sun  or  sky)  &c.'     But  the  introduction  of  the  preposition  is  entirely  arbitrary 


144  ISAIAH  VL 

and  extremely  forced. — Kimchi  and  Junius  explained  IT'D^y  to  mean  its  ruins, 
deriving  it  from  ^V  to  destroy  (Hos.  x.  2).  Clericus,  following  an  Arabic 
analogy,  translates  it  in  conclavihus,  Avliicb  seems  absurd.  The  common 
derivation  is  from  ^"^V  to  distill  (Deut.  xxxii.  2 ;  xxxiii.  28),  according  to 
which  it  means  the  clouds,  either  strictly,  or  as  a  descnption  of  the  heavens 
generally.  Lowth,  and  several  of  the  later  Germans,  give  the  particle  a 
causal  sense,  through  or  It/  reason  of  its  clomls  ;  but  the  proper  local  sense 
oi  in  its  chnicls  or  skies  is  retained  by  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  all  the  early 
writers.  The  second  verb  is  taken  indefinitely  by  all  the  modern  Germans 
except  Ewald,  who  translates  it  he  lools,  but,  as  if  l)y  way  of  compensation, 
gives  an  indefinite  meaning  to  the  suffix  in  V"?^  which  he  renders  over  or 
tipon  one  (liber  einem).  The  use  of  the  present  tense,  in  rendering  the  first 
clause  by  Cocceius  and  the  later  Germans,  is  hardly  consistent  with  the 
phrase  iji  that  day,  and  destroys  the  fine  antithesis  between  the  future  Dn;?* 
and  the  preterite  '=]?r'0  describhig  the  expected  obscuration  as  already  past. 
— Clericus  appears  to  be  alone  in  referring  t33J  to  the  enemy  (solo  ads))ectu 
terram  Israeliticam  tcrrebit  !).  The  sense  of  the  last  clause,  according  to 
the  Masoretic  interpretation,  is  well  expressed  by  Gesenius,  "  (bald)  Angst, 
(bald)  Licht,"  and  more  paraphrastically  by  an  old  French  version,  "  il  re- 
gardera  vers  la  terre,  mais  voici  il  y  aura  des  tenebres,  il  y  aura  affliction 
avec  la  lumiere,  il  y  aura  des  tenebres  au  ciei  audessus  d'elle." 


CHAPTEE   VI. 

This  chapter  contains  a  vision  and  prophecy  of  awful  import.  At  an 
early  period  of  his  ministry,  the  Prophet  sees  the  Lord  enthroned  in  the 
temple  and  adored  by  the  Seraphim,  at  \vhose  voice  the  house  is  shaken, 
and  the  Prophet,  smitten  with  a  sense  of  his  own  corruption  and  unworthi- 
ness  to  speak  for  God  or  praise  him,  is  relieved  by  the  application  of  fire 
from  the  altar  to  his  lips,  and  an  assurance  of  forgiveness,  after  which,  in 
answer  to  the  voice  of  God  inquiring  for  a  messenger,  he  offers  himself  and 
is  accepted,  but  with  an  assurance  that  his  labours  will  tend  only  to  aggra- 
vate the  guilt  and  condemnation  of  the  people  who  are  threatened  with 
judicial  blindness,  and,  as  its  necessary  consequence,  removal  from  i\\v 
desolated  countiy  ;  and  the  prophecy  closes  with  a  promise  and  a  threaten- 
ing both  in  one,  to  wit,  that  the  remnant  which  survives  the  threatened 
judgments  shall  experience  a  repetition  of  the  stroke,  but  that  a  remnant 
after  all  shall  continue  to  exist  and  to  experience  God's  mercy. 

The  chapter  naturally  falls  into  two  parts,  the  vision,  vers.  1-8,  and  the 
message  or  prediction,  vers.  9-13.  The  precise  relation  between  these  two 
parts  has  been  a  subject  of  dispute.  The  question  is,  whether  the  vision 
is  an  introduction  to  the  message,  or  the  message  an  appendage  to  the 
vision.  Those  who  take  the  former  view  suppose  that  in  order  to  prepare 
the  Prophet  for  a  discouraging  and  painful  revelation,  he  was  favoured  with 
a  new  view  of  the  divine  majesty  and  of  his  own  unwortbiness,  relieved  by 
an  assurance  of  forgiveness,  and  encouraged  by  a  special  designation  to  the 
self-denying  work  which  was  before  him.  Those  who  assume  the  other 
ground  proceed  upon  the  supposition,  that  the  chapter  contains  an  account 
of  the  Prophet's  original  induction  into  office,  and  that  the  message  at  the 
close  was  added  to  prepare  him  for  its  disappointments,  or  perhaps  to  try 
his  faith. 

Either  of  these  two  views  may  be  maintained  without  absurdity  and 


Ver.  1.]  ISAIAH  VI.  145 

without  materially  aflecting  the  details  of  the  interpretation.  The  second 
is  not  only  held  by  Jewish  writers,  but  by  the  majority  of  Christian  inter- 
preters in  modern  times.  The  objection  to  it,  founded  on  the  place  which 
the  chapter  holds  in  the  collection,  is  met  by  some  with  the  assertion,  that 
the  prophecies  are  placed  without  regard  to  chronological  order.  But  as 
this  is  a  gratuitous  assumption,  and  as  the  order  is  at  least  'prima  facie 
evidence  of  date,  some  of  the  latest  writers  (Ewald  for  example)  hold  that 
the  date  of  the  composition  was  long  posterior  to  that  of  the  event,  and 
one  writer  (Hitzig)  goes  so  far  as  to  assume,  that  this  is  the  latest  of 
Isaiah's  writings,  and  was  intended  to  exhibit,  in  the  form  of  an  ex  post  facto 
prophecy,  the  actual  result  of  his  official  experience.  This  extravagant 
hypothesis  needs  no  refutation,  and  neither  that  of  Ewald,  nor  the  common 
one,  which  makes  this  the  first  of  Isaiah's  writings,  should  be  assumed 
without  necessity,  that  is,  without  something  in  the  chapter  itself  for- 
bidding us  to  refer  it  to  any  other  date  than  the  beginning  of  Isaiah's 
ministry.  But  the  chapter  contains  nothing  which  would  not  have  been 
appropriate  at  any  period  of  that  ministry,  and  some  of  its  expressions 
seem  to  favour,  if  they  do  not  require,  the  hypothesis  of  previous  experi- 

'  ence  in  the  office.  The  idea  of  so  solemn  an  inauguration  is  affecting  and 
impressive,  but  seems  hardly  sufficient  to  outweigh  the  presumption  arising 
from  the  order  of  the  prophecies  in  favour  of  the  other  supposition,  which 
requires  no  facts  to  be  assumed  without  authority,  and  although  less  strik- 
ing, is  at  least  as  safe. 

1.   In  the  year  that  king  Uzziah  died  (^B.C.  758J),  I  saiotheLord  sitting 
on  a  throne  high-  and  lifted  uj'),  and  his  skirts  (the  train  of  his  royal  robe) 

filling  the  palace,  or  taking  the  last  word  in  its  more  specific  sense,  the 
temple,  so  called  as  being  the  palace  of  the  great  King.  "  No  man  hath 
seen  God  at  any  time"  (John  i.  18),  and  God  himself  hath  said,  "  There 
shall  no  man  see  me  and  live"  (Exod.  xxxiv.  20).  Yet  we  read  not  only  that 
"  the  pure  in  heart  shall  see  God  "  (Mat.  v.  8),  but  that  Jacob  said,  "  I 
have  seen  God  face  to  face  "  (Gen.  xxxii.  30).  It  is  therefore  plain  that 
the  phrase  "to  see  God"  is  employed  in  different  senses,  and  that  al- 
though his  essence  is  and  must  be  invisible,  he  may  be  seen  in  the/|' 
manifestation  of  his  glory  or  in  human  form.  The  first  of  these  senses  is' 
given  here  hy  the  Targum  and  Grotius,  the  last  by  Clericus,  with  more 
probability,  as  the  act  of  sitting  on  a  throne  implies  a  human  form,  and 
Ezekiel  likewise  in  prophetic  vision  saw,  "  upon  the  likeness  of  a  throne, 
an  appearance  as  the  likeness  of  a  man  above  upon  it  "  (Ezek.  i.  26).  It  has 
been  a  general  opinion  in  all  ages  of  the  Church,  that  in  every  such  mani-i, 
fe station  it  was  God  the  Son  who  thus  revealed  himself.  In  John  xii.  41, 
it  is  said  to  have  been  Christ's  glory  that  Isaiah  saw  and  spoke  of,  while 
Paul  cites  vers.  9  and  10  (Acts  xxviii.  25,  26)  as  the  language  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  It  seems  needless  to  inquire  whether  the  Prophet  saw  this  sight 
with  his  bodily  eyes,  or  in  a  dream,  or  in  an  ecstasy,  since  the  effect  upon 
his  own  mind  must  have  been  the  same  in  either  case.  It  is  also  a  ques- 
tion of  no  moment  whether  he  beheld  the  throne  erected  in  the  holy  place,  / 
or  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  or  in  heaven,  or  as  Jarchi  imagines,  reaching 
from  earth  to  heaven.  The  scene  of  the  vision  is  evidently  taken  from 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  but  not  confined  to  its  exact  dimensions  and 
arrangements.  It  has  been  disputed  whether  what  is  here  recorded  took 
place  before  or  after  the  death  of  Uzziah.  Those  who  regard  this  as  the 
first  of  Isaiah's  prophecies  are  forced  to  assume  that  it  belongs  to  the 

VOL.  I.  K 


146  ISAIAH  VI.  [Ver.  2. 

reign  of  Uzziali.  It  is  also  urged  in  favour  of  this  opinion,  that  the  time 
after  his  deatli  would  have  been  desclvbed  as  the  firt-t  year  of  Jotham.  The 
design,  however,  may  have  been  to  fix,  not  the  reign  in  which  he  saw  the 
vision,  but  the  nearest  remarkable  event.  Besides,  the  fust  year  of  Julhmn 
would  have  been  ambiguous,  because  his  reign  is  rcclsoned  from  two  difl'erent 
epochs,  the  natural  death  of  Lis  father,  and  his  civil  death,  when  smitten  w.th 
the  leprosy,  after  which  he  resided  in  a  separate  bouse,  and  the  government 
was  administered  by  Jotham  as  prince-regent,  who  was  therefore  virtually 
king  before  he  was  such  formally,  and  is  accordingly  described  in  the  very 
same  context  as  having  reigned  sixteen  and  twenty  yeais  (2  Kings  xv.  30, 
33).  It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  by  Uzziah's  death  the  Prophet  here 
intends  his  leprosy,  as  the  Targum  and  some  of  the  rabbins  suppose,  but 
merely  that  the  mention  of  Uzziah  is  no  proof  that  the  vision  was  seen 
before  he  died. — Abarbenel  and  Roseiimlillcr  refer  the  epithets  hicjli  and 
Jqfty  to  the  Lord,  as  in  chap.  Ivii.  15,  and  Calvin  understands  by  the  train 
the  edging  of  the  cloth  which  covered  the  throne.  But  the  common  ex- 
planation is  in  either  case  more  natural.  The  conjunction  before  ~^>7^^  is 
not  to  be  connected  A\ith  n^n  understood  (Hendewerk),  or  rendered  aho 
(English  version),  but  explained  as  an  example  of  a  common  Hebrew  idiom 
■which  prefixes  this  particle  to  the  apodosis  of  a  sentence,  especially  when 
the  first  clause  contains  a  specification  of  time.  It  is  hero  substantially 
equivalent  to  tlien,  and  is  so  rendered  by  Junius  and  Tremellius,  Gesenius, 
Henderson,  and  others. 

2.  He  sees  the  Lord  not  only  enthroned  but  attended  by  his  ministers. 
SeropJtim,  burning  spirits,  staitclivg  aivve  it,  the  throne,  or,  olave  him 
that  sat  upon  it.  Si.r  irivr/x,  six  uiitijs,  to  one,  i.  e.  to  each.  With  (ivn  he 
covers  his  jace,  as  a  sign  of  reverence  towards  God,  and  with  liio  he  covers 
his  feet,  for  the  same  purpose,  or  to  conceal  himself  from  mortal  view,  ami 
uilh  two  he  flies,  to  execute  God's  will.  The  Hebrew  word  Herafihiin  is 
/  retained  by  the  Septuagint,  Peshito,  and  Vulgate,  but  by  the  Targrm  para- 
phrased as  holy  ministers.  It  is  rightly  explained  by  Kimchi  and  Abuhvalid 
as  meaning  our/els  of  Jire,  from  f]"^  to  burn,  the  name  being  descriptive 
either  of  their  essence,  or,  as  Clericus  supposes,  of  their  ai  dent  love,  or  ac- 
cording to  Grotius,  of  God's  wrath  which  they  execute.  Lightfcot  supposes 
a  particular  allusion  to  the  burning  of  the  temple,  which  is  ncerlless  and  un- 
natural. This  reference  to  heat  as  well  as  light,  to  something  terrible  as 
well  as  splendid,  does  away  with  G(  senius's  oljection  that  the  root  means  to 
bum,  not  to  shine,  and  also  with  his  own  derivation  of  the  noun  from  the 
Arabic  ^;,  j^  noble,  because  angels  are  the  nobility  of  heaven,  and  Michael 

is  called  one  of  the  chief  princes  (Dan.  x.  13).  Still  less  attention  is  due 
to  the  notion  that  the  word  is  connected  in  its  origin  with  Srrapis  (Hitzig) 
and  signifies  serpents  (Umbreit),  sjihiinres  (Knobel),  mixed  forms  like  ihe 
cherubim  (Ewald),  or  the  cherubim  th(niselves  (Hendewerk).  The  word 
occurs  elsewhere  only  as  the  name  of  the  y/^;// s^/yr/z^s  of  the  wildemcss 
(Num.  xxi.  G,  8;  Deut.  viii.  15),  desciibcd  by  Isaiah  (xiv.  29;  xxx.  G)  as 
Jfyi)ig  serpents.  The  transfer  of  the  name  to  beings  so  dissimilar  res:s  on 
their  possession  of  two  common  attributes.  Both  are  described  as  nijujed, 
and  both  as  Ininiiny.  Umbreit  cons-iders  ^tavdiny  as  8ynon^m.ous  with  nrv- 
iny,  because  servants  are  ofien  said  in  the  Old  Testament  to  stand  hriore 
their  masters. — But  it  is  better  to  retain  the  proper  meaning,  not  as  imply- 
ing necessarily  that  they  rested  on  Ihe  earth  or  any  ether  solid  surface,  but 
that  they  were  stationary,  even  in  the  air.     This  will  remove  all  objection 


Vee.  3.]  ISAIAH  VI.  147 

to  the  version  nhove  hiw,  -which  may  also  be  explained  as  describing  the  rela- 
tive position  of  persons  in  a  standing  and  sitting  posture.  There  is  no  need 
therefore  of  the  rendering  above  it,  which  is  given  in  our  Bible,  nor  of  taking 
the  compound  preposition  in  the  unusual  sense  of  near  (Grotius,  Henderson), 
or  near  above  (Junius),  around  (Sept.  Gesen.  Ewald),  or  around  above 
(Targ.  Cocceius,  Arg.  Umbr.)  The  repetition  of  the  phrase  six  tii)tr/s  sup- 
plies the  place  of  a  distributive  pronoun  (Gesen.  §  118,  5.)  The  version 
six  pairs  of  xcinrjs  rests  on  an  entire  misconception  of  the  Hebrew  dual, 
which  is  never  a  periphrasis  of  the  number  two,  but  is  simply  a  peculiar 
plural  form  belonging  to  nouns  which  denote  things  that  naturally  exist  in 
pairs.  Hence  the  numeral  prefixed  always  denotes  the  number,  not  of  pairs, 
but  of  individual  objects.  (See  Ewald's  Heb.  Gr.  §  365).  The  future  form 
of  the  verbs  denotes  continued  and  habitual  action.  According  to  Origen, 
there  were  only  two  seraphs,  and  these  wei-e  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  who 
are  here  described  as  covering,  not  their  own  face  and  feet,  but  the  face  and 
feet  of  the  Father,  to  imply  that  although  they  are  his  revealers,  they  con- 
ceal the  beginning  and  the  end  of  his  eternit}'.  Jerome  denounces  this  in- 
genious whim  as  impious,  but  retains  the  same  construction  (faciem  ejus, 
pedes  ejus).  The  Cbaldee  paraphrase  is,  "with  two  he  covered  his  face,  lest 
he  should  see  ;  with  two  he  covered  his  body,  lest  he  should  be  seen  ;  and 
with  two  he  served.'"  The  covering  of  the  feet  may,  however,  according  to 
oriental  usage,  be  regarded  as  a  reverential  act,  equivalent  in  import  to  the 
hiding  of  the  face. 

3.  He  now  describes  the  seraphim  as  praising  God  in  an  alternate  or 
responsive  doxology.  And  this  cried  to  this,  i.  e.  to  one  another,  and  said, 
Holy,  Hohj,  Holy,  (is)  Jehovah  of  hosts,  the  fulness  of  the  vlwle  earth, 
that  which  fills  the  whole  earth,  is  his  glory !  It  was  commonly  agreed 
among  the  Fathers,  that  only  tv/o  seraphim  are  mentioned  here,  and  this 
opinion  is  maintained  by  Hendewerk.  It  cannot  be  proved,  however,  from 
the  words  this  to  this,  which  are  elsewhere  used  in  reference  to  a  greater 
number.  (See  Exod.  xiv.  20  ;  xxxvi.  10  ;  Jer.  xlvi.  16.)  Clericus  explains 
this  to  this  as  relating  not  to  the  cry  but  the  position  of  those  crying,  alter 
ad  alterum  convcrsus.  Rosenmiiller  understands  the  triine  repetition  as  im- 
plying that  the  words  were  uttered  first  by  one  choir,  tnen  by  another,  and 
lastly  by  the  two  together,  which  is  a  very  artificial  hypothesis.  The  allu- 
sion to  the  Trinity  in  this  roisdyicv  is  the  more  probable  |  because  different 
parts  of  the  chapter  are  referred  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  three  persons 
of  the  Godhead.  Calvin  and  Cocceius  admit  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  | 
cannot  be  proved  from  this  expression,  and  that  a  like  repetition  is  used  else- 1 
where  simply  for  the  sake  of  emphasis.  See  for  example  Jer.  vii.  4,  xxii.  9; 
Ezek.  xsi.  27.  But  according  to  J.  H.  Michaelis,  even  there  the  idea  of 
trinity  in  unity  was  meant  to  be  suggested  (cum  unitate  conjuncta  tripli- 
citas).  Holy  is  here  understood  by  most  interpreters  as  simply  denoting 
moral  purity,  which  is  certainly  the  prominent  idea.  Most  probably,  however, 
it  denotes  the  whole  divine  perfection,  that  which  separates  or  distinguishes 
between  God  and  his  creatures.  "  I  am  God  and  not  man,  the  Holy  One  in 
the  midst  of  thee,"  Hos.  xi.  9.  On  the  etymology  and  usage  of  this  word, 
see  Hengstenberg  on  Ps.  xxii.  4,  and  xxix.  9.  Grotius  strangely  restricts  its 
import  by  referring  it  in  this  case  to  God's  righteousness  in  dealing  with  the 
king  and  people.  Umbreit  supposes  the  idea  of  a  separate  or  personal  God, 
as  opposed  to  the  pantheistic  notion,  to  be  included  in  the  meaning  of  the 
term.  Grotius  and  Junius  understand  by  )^p>^n"?3  all  the  land;  Luther  and 
Hendewerk,  all  lands ;  the  last  of  which,  although  inaccurate  in  form,  is 


148  ISAIAH  VI.  [Ver.  4,  5. 

really  synon^Tnous  with  all  the  earth,  and  the  former  is  forhidden  by  the 
streugtii  of  the  expressions  in  the  text  and  context.  Clericus  makes  fjlory 
not  tlie  subject  but  the  predicate  :  the  fulness  of  the  earth,  all  that  the  earth 
contains,  (.s  th)/  (flonj,  or  promotes  it.  But  the  common  construction  is  sus- 
tained by  the  analogy  of  chap,  viii,  8,  yvherc  fulness  of  the  earth  is  the  predi- 
cate, and  that  of  the  prayer  and  prediction  in  Ps.  Ixxii.  10  (let  the  whole 
earth  be  filled  with  his  glory),  and  Num.  xiv.  21  (all  the  earth  shall  be  filled 
with  the  glory  of  Jehovah).  The  words  may  have  reference  not  only  to  the 
present  but  the  future,  implying  that  the  judgments  about  to  be  denounced 
against  the  Jews,  should  be  connected  with  the  general  diffusion  of 
God's  glory.  There  may  also  be  allusion  to  the  cloud  which  filled  the 
temple,  as  if  he  had  said,  the  presence  of  God  shall  no  longer  be  restricted 
to  one  place,  but  the  whole  earth  shall  be  full  of  it.  By  the  f/lori/  of  God 
J.  H.  Michaelis  understands  his  essence  (Wesen)  or  God  himself.  But  the 
idea  of  special  manifestation  seems  to  be  not  only  expressed  but  prominent. 
The  same  writer  renders  ri"lS3V  mn'',  here  and  elsewhere,  God  of  f/ods. 
Clericus  as  usual  makes  it  mean  (Jod  of  armies  or  battles.  The  Hebrew 
word  is  retained  by  the  Septuagint,  Luther,  August! ,  and  Umbreit.  The  use 
of  the  preterite  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  probably  euphonic.  The 
Vav  has  no  conversive  influence,  because  not  preceded  by  a  future  verb 
(Nordh.  §  219). 

4.  The  effect  of  this  doxology,  and  of  the  whole  supernatural  appearance, 
is  described.  TJien  stirred,  or  shook,  the  bas'^.s  of  the  thresholds  at  the  voice 
that  cried,  or  at  the  voice  of  the  one  crying,  and  the  house  is  filled  with 
smoke.  The  words  CSDH  nirss  are  explained  to  mean  the  lintel  or  upper 
part  of  the  door-frame,  by  the  Septuagint,  Luther,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis. 
The  Vulgate  gives  the  second  word  the  sense  of  hinges  (superliminaria 
cardinum).  It  is  now  commonly  admitted  to  mean  thresholds,  and  the 
other  word  foundations.  'X^e  common  version,  posts,  is  also  given  by 
Clericus  and  Vitringa.  The  door  may  be  particularly  spoken  of,  because 
the  prophet  was  looking  through  it  from  the  court  without  into  the  interior. 
The  participle  crying  may  agree  with  voice  directly,  voce  clamante  (Junius 
and  Tremellius),  or  with  serop/t  understood.  Clericus  makes  it  a  collective, 
at  the  voice  of  those  crying,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Gesenius  and  others  ; 
but  Hendewerk  supposes  the  singular  form  to  intimate  that  only  one  cried 
at  a  time.  Cocceius  and  J.  H.  MichaeUs  understand  it  to  mean  every  one 
that  cried.     By  smoke  Knobel  and  others  understand  a  cloud  or  vapour 

f  shewing  the  presence  of  Jehovah.  Most  interpreters,  however,  understand 
'  it  in  its  proper  sense  of  smoke,  as  the  natural  attendant  of  the  fire  which 
blazed  about  the  throne  of  God,  or  of  that  which  burned  upon  the  altar, 
as  in  Lev.  xvi.  13,  the  mercy-seat  is  said  to  be  covered  with  a  "  cloud  of 
incense."  In  either  case  it  was  intended  to  produce  a  solemn  awe  in  the 
beholder.  The  reflexive  sense,  it  filled  itself,  given  to.  the  last  verb  by 
Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit,  is  not  so  natural  as  the  simple 
passive,  it  was  filled  or  it  became  full. 

5.  The  Prophet  now  describes  himself  as  filled  with  awe,  not  only  by  the 
presence  of  Jehovah,  but  also  by  a  deep  impression  of  his  own  sinfulness, 
especially  considered  as  unfitting  him  to  praise  God,  or  to  be  his  messenger, 
and  therefore  represented  as  residing  in  the  organs  of  speech.  And  I  said, 
when  I  saw  and  heard  these  things,  then  I  said,  Woe  is  me,  woe  to  me,  or 
alas  for  me,  a  phrase  expressing  lamentation  and  alarm,  for  I  am  undone, 
or  destroyed,  yor  a  man  of  imjmre  lips,  as  to  the  lips,  am  I,  and  in  the 
midst  of  a  people  impure  of  lips,  of  impure  lips,  /  am   dwelling,  and  am 


Ver.  G.j  ISAIAH  VI.  149 

therefore  undone, /or  the  King,  Jehovah  of  hosts,  my  eyes  have  seen.  The 
allusion  is  not  merely  to  the  ancient  and  prevalent  behef  that  no  one  could 
see  God  and  live  (Gen.  xxxii.  30  ;  Judges  vi.  22-24,  xiii.  22  ;  Exod.  iv, 
10,  12  ;  xxxiii.  20 ;  1  Sam.  vi.  19),  but  to  the  aggravation  of  the  danger 
arising  from  the  moral  contrast  between  God  and  the  beholdtT. — According 
to  an  old  interpretation,  ^r>'''?'7^  is  a  statement  of  the  reason  why  he  was 
alarmed,  to  wit,  because  he  had  kept  silence,  quia  tacui  (Vulgate),  either 
when  he  heard  the  praises  of  the  seraphim,  or  when  it  was  his  duty  to  have 
spoken  in  God's  name.  The  last  sense  is  preferred  by  Grotius,  the  fu'st  by 
Lowth  (I  am  struck  dumb),  and  with  some  modification  by  J.  D.  Michaelis 
(that  I  must  be  dumb).  This  sense  is  also  given  to  the  verb  by  Aquila, 
Symmachus,  Theodotion,  the  Peshito,  and  in  some  copies  of  the  Septuagint, 
the  common  test  of  which  has  -/.aTav'-vvyiJ^ai,  I  am  smitten  with  compunction. 
Most  other  writers,  ancient  and  modern,  understand  the  word  as  meaning 
/  a7n  ruined  or  destroyed.  It  is  possible,  however,  as  suggested  by  Yitringa, 
that  an  allusion  was  intended  to  the  meaning  of  the  verb  in  its  gi"ound-form, 
in  order  to  suggest  that  his  guilty  silence  or  unfitness  to  speak  was  the  cause 
of  the  destruction  which  he  felt  to  be  impending.  Above  sixty  manuscripts 
and  several  editions  read  ^nolJ,  which,  as  Henderson  observes,  is  probably 
a  mere  orthographical  variation,  not  aflecting  the  sense.  The  lips  are  men- 
tioned as  the  seat  of  his  depravity,  because  its  particular  effect,  then  present 
to  his  mind,  was  in  capacity  to  speak  for  God  or  in  his  praise.  That  it  does 
not  refer  to  ofiicial  unfaithfulness  in  his  prophetic  office,  is  apparent  from 
the  application  of  the  same  words  to  the  people.  The  preterite  form  of  the 
verb  implies  that  the  deed  was  already  done  and  the  efi'ect  already  certain. 
The  substitution  of  the  present,  b}'  Luther  and  many  of  the  late  writers, 
weakens  the  expression. 

6.  He  now  proceeds  to  describe  the  way  in  which  he  was  relieved  from 
this  distress  by  a  symbolical  assurance  of  forgiveness.  And  there  flew  (or 
then  flew)  to  me  one  of  the  seraphim,  and  in  his  hand  a  live  coal  (or  a  hot 
stone) ;  with  tongs  he  took  it  from  off  [ox  from  upon)  the  altar  ;  of  incense,  ac- 
cording to  Hendewerk  and  others,  but  according  to  Grotius,  that  of  burnt- 
ofiering,  which  stood  mthout  the  temple  in  the  court  where  the  Prophet  is 
supposed  to  have  been  stationed.  Both  these  interpretations  take  for  granted 
the  necessity  of  adhering  to  the  precise  situation  and  dimensions  of  the 
earthly  temple,  whereas  this  seems  merely  to  have  furnished  the  scenery  of 
the  majestic  vision.  Knobel  understands  by  the  altar  the  golden  altar  seen 
by  John  in  heaven,  Eev.  viii.  3,  ix.  13.  Ail  that  is  necessary  to  the  under- 
standing of  the  vision  is,  that  the  scene  presented  was  a  temple,  and  included 
an  altar.  The  precise  position  of  the  altar  or  of  the  Prophet  is  not  only 
unimportant,  but  forms  no  part  of  the  picture  as  here  set  before  us.  As 
nsV"i  elsewhere  means  a  pavement,  and  its  verbal  root  to  pave,  and  as  the 
Arabs  call  by  the  same  name  the  heated  stones  which  they  employ  in  cook- 
ing, most  modern  writers  have  adopted  Jerome's  explanation  of  the  word, 
as  meaning  a  hot  stone  taken  from  the  altar,  which  was  only  a  consecrated 
hearlh  or  fire-place.  The  old  interpretation  coal  is  retained  by  Hendewerk, 
who  denies  that  stones  were  ever  used  upon  the  altar.  In  the  last  clause 
either  personal  or  the  relative  pronoun  may  be  supplied,  he  took  it,  or 
t(7((t7!  he  took  ;  but  the  former  (which  is  given  by  Hendew^erk,  De  Wette,  and 
Umbreit)  seems  to  agree  better  with  the  order  of  the  words  in  Hebrew. 
The  word  translated  tongs  is  elsewhere  used  to  signify  the  snuffers  of  the 
golden  candlestick,  and  tongs  are  not  named  among  the  furniture  of  the 
altars  ;  but  such  an  implement  seems  to  be  indispensable,  and  the  Hebrew 


160  ISAIAH  VI.  [Ver.  7,  8. 

word  may  be  applied  to  anytliing  in  the  nature  of  a  forceps.— Hitzig  and 
,  others,  who  regard  the  seraphim  as  serpents,  sphinxes,  or  mixed  forms,  are 
I  under  the  necessity  of  explaining  hand  to  mean  forc/vot  or  the  like.  No- 
I  thing  in  the  whole   passage  implies  any  variation   from  the  human  form, 

except  in  the  addition  of  wings,  which  arc  expressly  mentioned. 

7.  And  he  caused  it  to  touch  {i.  e.  laid  it  on)  mij  mouth,  and  said,  Lo, 
this  hath  touched  thy  lips,  and  thy  iniqui'y  is  gone,  and  thy  sin  shidl  he 
atoned  for  (or  forgiven).  In  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase  the  coal  from  off  the 
altar  is  transformed  into  a  word  from  the  shcchinah,  which  is  put  into  the 
Prophet's  mouth,  denoting  his  prophetic  inspiration.  So  Jeremiah  says  : 
"  The  Lord  put  forth  his  hand,  and  touched  my  mouth  ;  and  the  Lord  said 
nnto  me,  Behold,  I  have  put  my  words  in  thy  mouth"  (Jer.  i.  9).  And 
Daniel :  "  One  like  the  similitude  of  the  sons  of  men  touched  my  lips,  then 
I  opened  my  mouth  and  spake"  (Dan.  x.  16).  Hence  the  Rabbins  and 
Grotius  understand  the  act  of  the  seraph  in  the  case  before  us  as  a  symbol 
of  prophetic  inspiration.  But  this  leaves  unexplained  the  additional  cir- 
cumstance, not  mentioned  in  the  case  of  Jeremiah  or  Daniel,  that  the  Pro- 
phet's lips  were  not  only  touched,  but  touched  with  fire.  This  is  explained 
by  Jerome  as  an  emblem  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  by  others  as  a  symbol  of 
purification  in  general.  But  the  mention  of  the  altar  and  the  assurance  of 
forgiveness,  or  rather  of  atonement,  makes  it  far  more  natural  to  take  the 
application  of  fire  as  a  symbol  of  expiation  by  sacrifice,  although  it  is  not 
necessary  to  suppose,  with  J.  D.  Michaelis,  that  the  Prophet  actually  saw  a 
victim  burning  on  the  altar.  The  fire  is  applied  to  the  lips  for  a  twofold 
reason  :  fii-st,  to  shew  that  the  particular  impediment  of  which  the  Prophet 
had  complained  was  done  away  ;  and  secondly,  to  shew  that  the  gift  of 
inspiration  is  included,  though  it  does  not  constitute  the  sole  or  chief  mean- 
ing of  the  symbol.  The  gift  of  prophecy  could  scarcely  be  described  as 
having  taken  away  sin,  although  it  might  naturally  accompany  the  work  of 
expiation.  The  preterite  and  future  forms  are  here  combined,  perhaps  to 
intimate,  first,  that  the  pardon  was  already  granted,  and  then  that  it  should 
still  continue.  This,  at  least,  seems  better  than  arbitrarily  to  confound  the 
two  as  presents. 

8.  The  assurance  of  forgiveness  produces  its  usual  eflect  of  readiness  to 
do  God's  will.  And  I  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  saying,  Whom  shall  I 
send,  and  who  xvill  go  for  us  f  And  I  said.  Here  am  7  (literally,  hchold  me, 
or  lo  I  am),  send  vie.  The  form  of  e'xpression  in  the  first  clause  may  imply 
that  the  speaker  was  now  invisible,  perhaps  concealed  by  the  smoke  which 
filled  the  house.  According  to  Jerome,  tlie  question  here  recorded  was  not 
addressed  to  Isaiah  himself,  because  it  was  intended  to  elicit  a  spontane- 
ous offer  upon  his  part.  "  Non  dicit  Dominus  quern  ire  prascipiat,  scd 
proponit  audientibas  optionem,  ut  voluntas  pncmium  consequatur."  The 
same  idea  is  suggested  by  J.  H.  Michaelis  and  Umbreit.  For  us  is  re- 
garded by  Vitringa  as  emphatic,  "  "Who  will  go  for  us,  and  not  for  himself, 
or  any  other  object  ?"  But  the  phrase  is  probably  equivalent  to  faying, 
"  Who  will  bo  our  messenger  ?"  This  is  the  version  actually  given  by  Luther, 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  Gesenius.  Most  of  the  other  German  writers  follow 
the  Vulgate  version,  quis  nobis  ihit  ?  The  plural  form  tw,  instead  of  me, 
is  explained  by  Gesenius,  Barnes,  and  Knobel,  as  a  mere  pluralis  majenta- 
ticus,  such  as  kings  and  princes  use  at  this  day.  Hitzig  denies  the  exist- 
ence of  that  idiom  among  the  orientals,  cither  ancient  or  modern,  and 
undertakes  to  give  a  metaphysical  solution,  by  saying  that  the  speaker  looks 
upon  himself  as  both   the   subject  and  object  of  address.     Kimchi  and 


Ver.  9.J  ISAIAH   VI.  151 

Grotius  represent  the  Lord  as  speaking,  not  in  bis  own  name  merely,  but 
in  that  of  bis  angelic  council  (tanquam  de  sententia  concilii  angelorum), 
and  the  siime  view  is  taken  by  Clericus  and  Rosenmiiller.  The  Peshito 
omits /u?'  UH  while  the  Septuagint  supplies  instead  of  it  the  words  to  this 
jjeople,  and  the  Targum,  to  teach — "  AVhom  shall  I  send  to  prophesy,  and 
who  will  go  to  teach  ?"  Jeroms's  explanation  of  tho  plural,  as  implying  a 
plurality  of  persons  in  the  speaker,  is  approved  by  Calvin,  who  was  doubt- 
ful with  respect  to  the  rsi^dyiov  in  ver,  3.  This  explanation  is  the  only  one 
that  accounts  for  the  difference  of  number  ia  the  verb  and  pronoun — ■ 
"  Whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  V  Jerome  compares  it  with 
the  words  of  Christ,  "  Ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus  ;  unnm  ad  naturam  re- 
ferimus,  siomis  ad  personarum  diversitatem."  The  phrase  ''?jin  is  the  usual 
idiomatic  Hebre.v  answer  to  a  call  by  name,  and  commonly  implies  a  readi- 
ness for  service.  J.  D.  Michaelis  translates  it  /  am  ready.  A  beautiful 
commentary  upon  this  effect  of  pardoned  sin  is  afforded  in  David's  peniten- 
tial prayer,  Ps.  li.  12-15. 

9.  The  Prophet  now  receives  his  commission,  together  with  a  solemn  de- 
claration that  his  labours  will  be  fruitless.  This  prediction  is  clothed  in 
the  form  of  an  exhortation  or  command  addressed  to  the  people  themselves, 
for  the  purpose  of  bringing  it  more  palpably  before  them,  and  of  aggi'avat- 
iiig  their  insanit}-  and  wickedness  in  ruining  themselves  after  such  a  warn- 
ing. And  he  said,  Go  and  say  to  thii people,  Hear  indeed,  or  hear  on,  hut 
U)iderstand  not ;  and  see  indeed,  or  contiuue  to  see,  hid  knoio  not.  In  most 
predictions  some  obscurity  of  language  is  required  to  secure  their  full 
accomplishment.  But  here  where  the  blindness  and  infatuation  of  the  people 
are  foretokl,  they  are  allowed  an  abundant  opportunity  of  hindering  its  ful- 
filment if  they  will.  Not  only  is  their  insensibility  described  in  the  strong- 
est terms,  implying  extreme  folly  as  well  as  extreme  guilt,  but,  as  if  to 
provoke  them  to  an  opposite  course,  they  are  exhorted,  with  a  sort  of  solemn 
irony,  to  do  the  very  thing  which  would  inevitably  ruin  them,  but  with  an 
explicit  intima'ion  of  that  issue  in  the  verse  ensuing.  This  form  of  speech 
is  by  no  means  foreign  from  the  dialect  of  common  life.  As  J,  D. 
Michaelis  well  observes,  it  is  as  if  one  man  shovild  say  to  another  in  whose 
good  resolutions  and  engagements  he  had  no  faith,  "  Go  now  and  do  the 
very  opposite  of  all  that  3'ou  have  said.  A  similar  expression  is  employed 
by  Christ  himself  when  he  says  to  the  Jews  (Mat.  xxiii,  32),  Fill  ye  up 
then  the  measure  of  your  fathers.  The  Septuagint  version  renders  the  im- 
peratives as  futures,  and  this  version  is  twice  quoted  in  the  New  Testament 
(Mat,  xiii.  14,  Acts  xxviii,  26),  as  giving  correctly  the  essential  meaning 
of  the  sentence  as  a  prophecy,  though  stripped  of  its  peculiar  form  as  au 
ironical  command,  J.  H.  Michaelis  and  Gesenius  make  even  the  original 
expression  a  strict  prophecy,  by  rendering  the  future  forms  as  futures  pro- 
per (nee  tamen  intelligetis)  on  the  ground  that  ?J?  is  sometimes  simply 
equivalent  to  ^^,  or  that  the  second  of  two  imperatives  sometimes  expresses 
the  result  dependent  on  the  act  denoted  by  the  first.  But  even  admitting 
these  assertions,  both  of  which  may  be  disputed,  the  predominant  usage  is 
so  clear  as  to  forbid  any  departure  from  the  proper  sense  of  the  imperative's 
without  a  strong  necessity,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  does  not  exist.  An- 
other mode  of  sol'teniug  the  apparent  harshness  of  the  language  is  adopted 
by  the  Targum,  which  converts  the  sentence  into  a  description  of  the 
people,  "  who  hear  indeed,  but  understand  not,  and  see  indeed  but  know 
not."  Ewald  and  some  older  writers  understand  this  people  as  a  phrase 
expressive  of  displeasure  and  contempt  intentionally  substituted  for  the 


A^<r* 


152  ISA  I  AN    VI.  3'kr.  10. 

phrase  my  j^^opJe,  uot  only  here  but  in  sevo'al  other  places.  See  for 
example  Exod.  xxxii.  9  ;  Isa.  ix.  16,  xxix.  13  ;  Jer.  vii.  IG.  The  idiomatic 
repetition  of  the  verbs  hear,  and  see  is  disregarded  in  translation  by  Luther, 
Clericus,  and  l)e  Wette,  and  copied  more  or  less  exactly,  by  the  Septuagiut 
(axor~  dxovaiTi,  ^Xi'zovrii  (3'As-^crs),  the  Yult^iite  (andite  audieutes,  videte 
visiouem),  Calvin,  Cocceius,  and  Vitriuga.  Neither  of  these  methods  con- 
veys the  true  force  of  the  original  expression,  which  is  clearly  emphatic, 
and  suggests  the  idea  of  distinctness,  clearness  (J.  D.  IMichaelis),  or  of 
mere  external  sight  and  hearing  (Augusti),  or  of  abundant  sight  and  hear- 
ing (J.  H.  Michaelis,  svfficientissime),  or  of  continued  sight  and  hearing 
(Junius,  indesinentcr),  probably  the  last  which  is  adopted  by  Gesenius,  Hitzig, 
Hendwerk,  Henderson,  and  Ewald.  IMaurer  makes  the  prominent  idea  that 
of  repetition  (iterum  iterumque).  The  idea  of  hearing  and  seeing  without 
perceiving  may  have  been  proverbial  among  the  Jews,  as  it  seems  to  have 
been  among  the  Greeks,  from  the  examples  given  by  Wetstein  in  his  note  on 
Mat.  xiii.  13.  Demosthenes  expressly  cites  it  as  a  pro  re  rh  (c7ao6/,a/a)  o^ic- 
Tug  iMTi  (i^'S.v  xa/'  avtoxjovr ag  ari  dy.o-jnv,  and  the  Prometheus  of  ^schylus 
employs  a  like  expression,  in  describing  the  primitive  condition  of  mankind 
on  which  one  of  the  Greek  scholiasts  observes,  diori  vojv  xal  (p^l'jr,aiv  ohy.  tiyjiv. 
10.  As  the  foregoing  verse  contains  a  prediction  of  the  people's  insensi- 
bility, but  under  the  form  of  a  command  or  exhortation  to  themselves,  so 
this  predicts  the  same  event,  as  the  result  of  Isaiah's  labours,  under  the  form 
of  a  command  to  him.  Make  fat,  gross,  callous,  tlie  heart  of  this  peojile, 
i.  e.  their  affections  or  their  minds  in  general,  and  its  ears  make  heavy,  dull 
or  hard  of  hearing,  and  its  eyes  smear,  close  or  blind,  lest  it  see  with  its  eyes, 
and  with  its  ears  hear,  and  its  heart  understand,  perceive  or  feel,  and  it  tui'n 
■to  me,  i.  e.  repent  and  be  converted,  a-nd  he  healed,  or  literally  and  one  heal 
it,  the  indefinite  construction  being  equivalent  in  meaning  to  a  passive.  The 
thing  predicted  is  judicial  blindness,  as  the  natural  result  and  righteous  re- 
tribution of  the  national  depravity.  This  end  would  be  promoted  by  the 
very  preaching  of  the  truth,  and  therefore  a  command  to  preach  was  in 
effect  a  command  to  blind  and  harden  them.  The  act  required  of  the 
Prophet  is  here  joined  with  its  ultimate  effect,  while  the  intervening  circum- 
stances, namely,  the  people's  sin  and  the  withholding  of  God's  gi'ace,  are 
passed  by  in  silence.  But  although  uot  expressed,  they  are  implied,  in  this 
command  to  preach  the  people  callous,  blind,  and  deaf,  as  J.  I).  Michaelis 
phrases  it.  The  essential  idea  is  their  insensibility,  considered  as  the  fruit 
of  their  ow^n  depravity,  as  the  execution  of  God's  righteous  judgment,  and 
as  the  only  visible  result  of  Isaiah's  laliours.  "  Deus  sic  i)ra'cipit  j^^diciali- 
ter,  populus  agit  criminaliter,  propheta  autem  ministerialiter '  (J.  H. 
Michaelis).  In  giving  Isaiah  his  commission,  it  was  natural  to  make  the 
last  of  these  ideas  prominent,  and  hence  the  fonn  of  exhortation  or  com- 
mand in  which  the  prophecy  is  here  presented.  ■Make  them  insensible,  not 
by  an  immediate  act  of  power,  nor  by  any  direct  influence  whatever,  but  by 
doing  your  duty,  which  their  wickedness  and  God's  righteous  judgments 
will  allow  to  have  no  other  effect.  In  this  sense  the  prophet  might  be  said 
to  preach  them  callous.  In  other  cases,  where  his  personal  agency  no  longer 
needed  to  be  set  forth  or  alluded  to,  the  verse  is  quoted,  not  as  a  command, 
but  a  description  of  the  people,  or  as  a  declaration  of  God's  agency  in  mak- 
ing them  insensible.  Thus  in  Mat.  xiii.  10,  and  in  Acts  xxviii.  26,  the 
Septuagint  version  is  retained,  in  which  the  people's  ov,n  guilt  is  the  pro- 
minent idea — "  for  this  people's  heart  is  waxed  gross,  and  their  ears  are 
dull  of  hearing,   and   their   eyes  they  have  closed,   lest,"    &c.     In  John 


Vee.  ll.J  ISAIAH    VI.  153 

xii.  40,  on  the  other  hand,  the  sentence  takes  a  new  form,  in  order  to  Lrhig 
out  distinctly  the  idea  of  judldal  blindness — "  he  hath  blinded  their  eyes 
and  hardened  their  heart,  lest,"  &c.  Both  these  ideas  are  in  fact  included 
in  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  though  its  forms  are  ditiferent,  in  order  to 
suit  the  occasion  upon  which  it  was  originally  uttered.  There  is  no  need, 
therefore,  of  supposing,  with  Cocceius,  that  the  verbs  in  the  first  clause  arc 
infinitives  with  preterites  understood  (impinguando  impinguavit — aggra- 
vando  aggravavit — oblinendo  oblivit),  to  which  there  is  besides  a  philological 
objection  [vide  mpnt,  chap.  v.  5).  The  paraphrase  in  John  no  more  proves 
that  the  verse  must  be  directly  descriptive  of  God's  agency,  than  that  in 
Acts  and  Matthew  proves  that  it  must  be  descriptive  of  the  people's  own 
agency,  which  sense  is  actually  put  upon  Cocceius's  construction  by  Abar- 
benel,  who  first  proposed  it,  and  who  thinks  that  the  verbs  must  either  be 
reflexive — "  the  heart  of  this  people  has  made  itself  fat,  their  ears  have 
made  themselves  heavy,  their  eyes  have  shut  themselves," — or  must  all 
agree  with  12? — "  the  heart  of  this  people  has  made  itself  fat,  it  has  made 
their  ears  heavy,  it  has  closed  their  eyes."  That  a  divine  agency  is  really 
implied,  though  not  expressed  as  Cocceius  supposes,  is  clear  from  the 
paraphrase  in  John  xii.  40,  and  creates  no  difficulty  here  that  is  not  com- 
mon to  a  multitude  of  passages,  so  that  nothing  would  be  gained  by  explain- 
ing it  away  in  this  one  instance.  "  Absque  hoc  testimonio,"  says  Jerome, 
'•  manet  eadem  qusestio  in  ecclesiis,  et  aut  cum  ista  solventur  et  ceterje, 
aut  cum  ceteris  et  hsec  indissolubilis  erit." — The  same  considerations  which 
have  been  presented  render  it  unnecessary  to  suppose,  with  Henderson  and 
others,  that  the  command  to  blind  and  harden  is  merely  a  command  to  pre- 
dict that  the  people  will  be  blind  and  hard ;  a  mode  of  explanation  which 
may  be  justified  in  certain  cases  by  the  context  or  by  exegetical  necessity, 
but  which  is  here  gratuitous  and  therefere  inadmissible. — Gesenius,  Augusti, 
and  De  Wette,  understand  by  heart  the  seat  of  the  affections,  and  accord- 
ingly translate  T?^  byyeeZ ;  but  the  constant  usage  of  the  latter  in  the  sense 
of  understanding  or  perceiving  seems  to  require  that  the  former  should  be 
taken  to  denote  the  whole  mind  or  rational  soul.  The  ancient  versions  take 
nri?  as  an  ablative  of  instrument,  in  which  they  are  followed  by  Luther, 
the  English  Version  (with  their  heart),  Junius,  Vitringa,  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
Lowth,  Augusti,  and  Henderson.  Calvin  makes  it  the  subject  of  the  verb 
(cor  ejus  intelligat),  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  De  Wette, 
Ewald,  Umbreit.  The  last  construction  is  more  simple  in  itself,  but  breaks 
the  uniformity  of  the  sentence,  as  the  other  verbs  of  this  clause  all  agree 
with  people  as  their  subject. — Clericus  takes  fr^QT  as  a  noun  and  reads  Jest 
there  he  healing,  and  the  same  sense  is  put  upoif  it  as  a  verb  by  Junius  and 
Vitringa.  The  Septuagint  and  A^ulgate  substitute  the  first  for  the  third 
person,  and  I  heal  them.  Cocceius  refers  the  verb  to  God  directly,  lest  he 
heal  them,  in  accordance  with  his  explanation  of  the  first  clause.  Most  of 
the  modern  writers  assume  an  impersonal  or  indefinite  construction,  which 
may  either  be  resolved  into  a  passive  (Gesenius.  De  Wette,  Henderson),  or 
retained  in  the  translation  (Hitzig,  Maurer,  Hendewerk,  Ewald).  Kimchi 
explains  the  heaUng  mention  to  be  pardon  following  repentance.  The  re- 
presentation of  sin  as  a  spiritual  malady  is  frequent  in  the  Scriptures. 
Thus  David  prays  (Ps.  xii.  4),  "  Heal  my  soul,  for  I  have  sinned  against 
thee."  Instead  of  heal,  in  the  case  before  us,  the  Targum  and  Peshito 
h^veforrjive,  which  is  substituted  likewise  in  the  quotation  or  rather  the 
allusion  to  this  verse  in  Mark  iv.  12. 

11.   And  I  said,  Hoiv  lung,  Lord  ?     And  he  said,  Until  that  cities  are 


154  ISAIAH  VI.  [Ver.  12,  13. 

desolate  for  want  of  an  inhahitant,  and  houses  for  luant  of  men,  and  the 
land  shall  he  desolated,  a  waste,  or  utterly  desolate.  The  spiritual  death  of 
the  people  should  be  followed  by  external  desolation.  H'tzit;  understands 
I  the  Prophet  to  ask  how  long  he  must  be  the  bearer  of  this  thankless  mes- 
'  sage ;  but  the  common  explanation  is  no  doubt  the  true  one,  that  he  askg 
*how  long  the  blindness  of  the  peeplo  shall  continue,  and  is. told  until  it 
ruins  them  and  drives  them  from  their  country.  Grotius  supposes  a  par- 
ticular allusion  to  Sennacherib's  invasion,  Clericus  to  that  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar ;  but  as  the  foregoing  description  is  repeatedly  applied  in  the  New 
Testament  to  the  Jews  who  were  contemporary  with  our  Saviour,  the 
threatening  must  be  equally  extensive,  and  equivalent  to  saying  that 
land  should  be  completely  wasted,  not  at  one  time  but  repeatedly. 
Kimchi,  who  also  understands  the  verse  as  referring  to  the  Babylonian  con- 
quest, finds  a  climax  in  the  language,  which  is  much  more  appropriate 
however  when  applied  to  successive  periods  and  events. — The  acumulatinn 
of  particles  DX  "•i?'^  ^J?  is  supposed  by  Henderson  to  indicate  a  long  lapse 
of  time ;  but  it  seems  to  differ  from  the  simple  form  only  as  until  differs 
from  until  that  or  until  ivhen.  On  the  meaning  of  T^'?  vide  supra, 
chap.  V.  9. 

12.  This  verse  continues  the  answer  to  the  Prophet's  question  in  the 
verse  preceding.  And  (until)  Jehovah  shall  have  put  far  (-^(removed  to  a 
distance)  the  men  (or  people  of  the  country),  and  fjicat  (much  or  abundant) 
shall  he  (hat  which  is  left  (of  unoccupied  forsaken  ground)  in  the  midst  of 
the  lani.  This  is  little  more  than  a  repetition,  in  other  words,  of  the  de- 
claration in  the  verse  preceding.  The  Ssptuagint  and  Vulgite  make  the 
last  clause  not  a  threatening  but  a  promise  that  those  left  in  the  land  shall 
be  multiplied.  Clericus  and  Lowth  understand  it  to  mean  "there  shall  bo 
many  a  deserted  woman  in  the  land,"  Gesenius,  "  many  ruins."  Ewald, 
"  a  great  vacancy  or  void  (Leere)."  Most  other  writers  take  n3-1Ty  as  an 
abstract,  meaning  desolation  or  desertion.  But  the  simplest  construction 
seems  to  be  that  of  Henderson  and  Kuobel,  who  make  it  agree  with  the 
land  itself,  and  understand  the  clause  as  threatening  that  there  shall  be  a 

*|  great  extent  of  unoccupied  forsaken  land.  The  terms  of  this  verse  may  bo 
applied  to  all  the  successive  desolations  of  the  country,  not  excepting  that 
most  extreme  and  remarkable  of  all  whifh  exists  at  the  present  moment. 

13.  The  chapter  closes  with  a  repetition  and  extension  of  the  threatening, 
but  in  such  a  form  as  to  involve  a  promise  of  the  highest  import.  While  it 
is  threatened  that  the  stroke  shall  be  repeated  on  the  remnant  that  survives 
its  first  inflction,  it  is  promised  that  there  shall  be  such  a  remnnnt  after  every 
repetition  to  the  last.  And  yet — even  after  the  entire  desolation  which  had 
first  been  mentioned — in  it — the  desolated  land — (there  shall  remain)  a  tenth 
or  tithe — here  put  indefinitely  for  a  small  proportion — and  (even  this  tenth) 
shall  return  and  he  for  a  consuming — i.  c.  shall  again  be  consumed — but  still 
not  utterly,  for — like  the  terebinth  and  like  the  oak — the  two  most  common 
forest  trees  of  Palestine — which  in  filling — in  their  fallen  state,  or  when 
felled — have  sid)stance  or  vitality  in  them — so  a  hohj  sred  shall  be,  or  is  the 
substance — vital  principle — of  it — the  tenth  or  remnant  which  appeared  to  bo 
destroyed.  However  frequently  the  people  may  seem  to  be  destroyed,  there 
shall  still  be  a  surviving  remnant,  and  however  frequently  that  very  remnant 
may  appear  to  perish,  there  shall  still  bo  a  remnant  of  the  remnnnt  left,  and 
this  indestructible  residuum  shall  be  the  holy  seed,  the  true  Church,  the 
"kiTiLijja  y.ar  \-/.7.oyrtV  yaotroi  (Rom.  xi.  5).  This  prediction  was  fulfilled,  not 
once  for  all,  but  again  and  again ;  not  only  in  the  vino-drcssers  and  husband- 


ISAIAH  VI L  155 

men  left  by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  afterwards  dcstro.yed  in  Egypt ;  not  only 
in  tho  remnant  that  survived  the  destruction  of  the  city  by  the  Romans, 
and  increased  until  again  destroyed  by  Adrian ;  but  in  the  present  existence 
of  the  Jews  as  a  pecuUar  people,  notwithstanding  the  temptations  to 
amalgamate  with  others,  notwithstanding  persecutions  and  apparent  extirpa- 
tions ;  a  fact  which  can  only  be  explained  by  the  prediction  that  "  all  Israel 
shall  be  saved  "  (Rom.  xi.  2G).  As  in  many  former  instances,  throughout 
the  history  of  the  chosen  people,  under  both  dispensations,  "even  so,  at 
this  present  time  also,  there  is  a  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  gi'ace." 
Ths  reference  of  holy  seed  to  Christ  (as  in  Gal.  iii.  16)  restricts  the  verse  to 
the  times  before  the  advent,  and  is  here  forbidden  by  the  application  of  the 
Hebrew  phrase  to  Israel  in  general  (Ezra  ix.  2,  Comp.  Isaiah  iv.  3,  Ixv.  9), 
a  meaning  which  is  hero  not  changed  but  only  limited,  upon  the  principle 
that  "  they  are  not  all  Israel  which  are  of  Israel  "  (Rom.  ix.  6).  As  thus 
explained,  the  threatening  of  the  versa  involves  a  promise.  There  is  no 
need  therefore  of  attempting  to  convert  it  into  a  mere  promise,  by  giving  to 
"V.^  the  active  sense  of  consuming  or  destroying  enemies  (Da  Dieu),  or  by 
m'Uung  i^yy  signify  return  from  exile  (C.ilvin),  and  connecting  ">>??"?  with 
what  follows — "be  destroyed  like  the  terebinth  and  oak,"  i.e.  only  destroyed 
like  them.  The  passive  sense  of  "IJ!??  nriM  is  fixed  by  the  analogy  of  Num. 
xxiv.  22,  and  Isaiah  xliv.  15.  The  idiomatic  use  of  the  verb  return  to 
qualify  another  verb  by  denoting  repetition  is  of  constant  occurrence,  and  is 
assum^l  here  by  almost  all  interpreters,  ancient  and  modern.  Besides,  the 
tenth  left  in  the  land  could  hardly  be  described  as  returning  to  it.  That 
"1.^^  denotes  purification  is  a  m3r3  rabbinical  conceit.  '"1?^^  has  been  vari- 
ously explained  to  mean  the  sap  (Targum),  root  (Da  WeTCe),  trunk  (Gese- 
nius),  germ  (Hitzig),  &o.  But  the  sense  which  seems  to  agree  bast  with 
tho  connection  and  the  etymology  is  that  of  suhstmce  or  sithsistence,  undar- 
stan  ling  thereby  the  vitality  or  that  which  is  essential  to'The'  life  and  repro- 
duction of  the  trea.  n??.*4*  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  1  Chron.  xxvi. 
16,  where  it  saems  to  be  tfea  name  of  one  of  the  temple  gates.  Hence  Aben 
Ezra  supposes  the  Prophet  to  alluda  to  two  particular  and  well-known  trees 
at  or  near  this  gata,  while  other  Jewish  writars  understand  him  as  referring 
to  the  timber  of  the  gate  or  of  the  causeway  leading  to  it  (1  Kings  x.  5). 
The  same  interpretation  is  adopted  by  Junius,  and  Coccaius  explains  the 
word  in  either  casa  as  an  appellative  meaning  cclusswuj.  But  with  these 
exceptions,  all  interpreters  appear  to  be  agreed  in  making  the  word  descrip- 
tive of  something  in  the  condition  of  the  trees,  the  spreading  of  their 
branches  (Vulgate),  the  casting  of  their  leaves  (Targum)  or  of  their  fruit 
(Septuagiut),  or  the  casting  down  or  felling  of  the  trea  itself,  which  last  is 
commonly  adopted.  Instead  of  D^,  referring  to  the  trees,  more  than  a 
hun  Ired  manuscripts  read  HS,  referring  to  the  tenth  or  to  the  land.  The 
suffix  in  tha  last  word  of  the  versa  is  referred  to  tha  land  or  people  by 
Ewald  and  Maurer,  but  with  more  probability  by  others  to  the  tenth,  which 
is  the  nearest  antecedent  and  affords  a  better  sense. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Here  begins  a  series  of  connected  prophecies  (chaps,  vii.-xii.),  belonging 
to  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  and  relating  in  general  to  the  same  gi'eat  subjects,  tho 
deliverance  of  Judah  from  Syria  and  Israel,  its  subsequent  subjection  to 
Assyria  and  other  foreign  powers,  the  final  destruction  of  its  enemies,  the 


15G  ISAIAH  VII.  [Ver.  1. 

advout  of  ]\re-siih,  and  the  nature  of  his  kingflom.  The  scries  admits  of 
diti'erent  divisions,  but  it  is  commonl}-  agi-eed  that  one  distinct  portion  is  con- 
tained in  the  seventh  chapter.  Hendewerk  and  Henderson  suppose  it  to 
inchide  two  hidependcnt  prophecies  (vers.  1-9  and  10-25),  and  Ewald 
separates  the  same  two  parts  as  distinct  portions  of  the  same  prophecy. 
The  common  division  is  more  natural,  however,  which  supposes  vers.  1-16 
to  contain  a  promise  of  dehverance  from  Sj-ria  and  Israel,  and  vers.  17-25 
a  threatening  of  worse  evils  to  be  brought  upon  Judah  by  the  Ass^'rians  in 
whom  they  trusted. 

The  chapter  begins  with  a  brief  historical  statement  of  the  invasion  of 
Judah  b}'  Hezin  and  Pekah,  and  of  the  fear  which  it  excited,  to  relieve  which 
Isaiah  is  commissioned  to  meet  Ahaz  in  a  public  place,  and  to  assure  him 
that  there  is  nothing  more  to  fear  from  the  invading  powers,  tliat  their  evil 
design  cannot  be  accomplislied,  that  one  of  them  is  soon  to  perish,  and  that 
in  the  mean  time  both  are  to  remain  without  enlargement,  vers.  1—9. 

Seeing  the  king  to  be  incredulous,  the  prophet  imdtes  him  to  assure 
himself  by  chosing  any  sign  or  pledge  of  the  event,  which  he  refuses  to  do, 
under  the  pretext  of  confidence  in  God,  but  is  charged  with  uubehef  by  the 
Prophet,  who  nevertheless  renews  the  promise  of  deliverance  in  a  sjTnbolical 
form,  and  in  connection  with  a  prophecy  of  the  miraculous  conception  and 
nativity  of  Christ,  both  as  a  pledge  of  the  event,  and  as  a  measure  of  the 
time  in  which  it  is  to  take  place,  vers.  10-16. 

To  this  assurance  of  immediate  deliverance,  he  adds  a  threatening  of 
ulterior  evils,  to  arise  from  the  Assyrian  protection  which  the  king  preferred 
to  that  of  God,  to  wit,  the  loss  of  independence,  the  successive  domhiation  of 
foreign  powers,  the  harassing  and  predatory  occupation  of  the  land  by 
strangers,  the  removal  of  its  people,  the  neglect  of  tillage,  and  the  transfor- 
mation of  its  choicest  vineyards,  fields,  and  gardens,  into  wastes  or  pastures, 
vers.  17-25. 

1.  Rezin.  the  king  of  Damascene  Syria  or  Aram,  from  whom  Uzziah 
had  taken  Elath,  a  port  on  the  Red  Sea,  and  restored  it  to  Judah  (2  Kings 
xiv.  22),  appears  to  have  formed  an  alliance  with  Pekah,  the  murderer  and 
successor  of  Pekahiah,  king  of  Israel  (2  Kings  xv.  27),  during  the  reign  of 
Jotham  (ib.  ver.  37),  but  to  have  deferred  the  actual  invasion  of  Judah 
until  that  king's  death,  and  the  accession  of  his  feeble  son,  in  the  first  year 
of  whose  reign  it  probably  took  place,  with  most  encouraging  success, 
as  the  army  of  Ahaz  was  entirely  destroyed,  and  200,000  persons  taken 
captive,  who  were  afterwards  sent  back  at  the  instance  of  the  prophet 
Oded  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  5-15).  Put  notwithstanding  this  success,  they  were 
miable  to  effect  their  main  design,  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem,  whether 
repelled  by  the  natural  strength  and  artificial  defences  of  the  place  itself,  or 
interrupted  in  the  siege  by  the  actual  or  dreaded  invasion  of  their  own 
dominions  by  the  king  of  Assyria  (2  Kings  xvi.  7-9).  It  seems  to  be  at  a 
point  of  time  between  their  first  successes  and  their  final  retreat,  that  the 
Prophet's  narrative  begins.  Audit  was — happened,  came  to  pass — in  the 
days  (>f  Ahaz,  son  of  Jotham,  son  of  Uzziah,  king  of  Judah,  that  Rezin  kinij 
of  Aram — or  SjTia — and  Pekah,  son  ofRcmaliah,  king  of  Israel,  came  up  to 
— or  against — Jerusalem  to  war  against  it ;  and  he  was  not  able  to  tvar 
against  it.  As  tvar  is  both  a  verb  and  a  noun  in  English,  it  may  be  used 
to  represent  tlie  Hebrew  verb  and  noiTn  in  this  sentence.  Some  give  a  dif- 
ferent meaiihig  to  the  two,  making  one  mean  to  fight  and  the  other  to  con- 
quer (Vulgate)  or  take  (Henderson)  ;  but  this  distinction  is  implied,  not 
expressed,  and  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words  is  that  he  (put  by  a  com- 


Yer.  2.]  ISAIAH  VII.  157 

rnon  licence  for  they,  or  meaning  each  of  them,  or  referring  to  Rezin  as  the 
principal  confederate)  could  not  do  what  he  attempted.     There  is  no  need 
of  taking  ?2^  in  the  absolute  sense  of  ^reraiVmj/ (Yitringa),  which  would 
require  a  ditierent  construction.     It  is  sufficient  to  supply  the  idea  of  suc- 
cess in  either  case ;  they  wished  of  course  to  war  successfully  against  it, 
v.-hich  they  could  not  do.     Gesenius  sets  the  fh-st  part  of  this  chapter  down 
as  the  production  of  another  hand,  because  it  speaks  of  Isaiah  in  the  third 
person,  and  because  the  first  verse  nearly  coincides  with  2  Kings  xvi.  5. 
But  as  that  may  just  as  well  have  been  derived  from  this — a  supposition 
favoured  by  the  change  of  ?3^^  into  -I??,* — and  as  the  use  of  the  third  person 
is  common  among  ancient  writers,  sacred  and  profane,  Isaiah  himself  not 
excepted   (chap.   xx.    37,  38),   there   is  no  need  even  of  supposing  with 
Yitringa,  that  the  last  clause  was  added  at  a  later  period,  by  the  sacred 
scribes,  or  with  Hengstenberg  and  Ewald,  that  the  verse  contains  a  general 
summary,  in  which  the  issue  of  the  war  is  stated  by  anticipation.     It  is  not 
improbable,  indeed,  that  this  whole  prophecy  was  written  some  time  after 
it  was  first  delivered ;  but  even  this  supposition  is  not  neecessary  for  the 
removal  of  the  alleged  difficulty,  which  arises  wholly  from  assuming  that 
this  verse  and  the  next  relate  to  the  beginning  of  the    enterprise,  when 
Kezin  and  Pekah  first  invaded  Judah,  whereas  they  relate  to  the  attack 
upon  Jerusalem,  after  the  country  had  been  ravaged,  and  the  disappoint- 
ment with  which  they  are  threatened  below  is  the  disappointment  of  their 
grand  design  iipon  the  royal  city,  which  was  the  more  alarming  in  conse- 
quence of  what  they  had  already  effected.     This  view  of  the  matter  brings 
the  two  accounts  in  Kings  and  Chronicles  into  perfect  harmony,  without 
supposing  what  is  here  described  to  be  either  the  first  (Grotius,  Usher),  or 
second  (Jerome,  Theodoret,  Jarchi,  Yitringa,  Rosenmiiller),  of  two  different 
invasions,  or  that  although  they  relate  to  the  same  event  (Lightfoot),  the 
account  in  Chronicles  is  chargeable  with  ignorant  exaggeration  (Gesenius). 
Another  view  of  the  matter,  which  also  makes  the  two  accounts  refer  to  one 
event,  is  that  of  Hengstenberg,  who  supposes  the  victory  of  Pekah  described 
in  Chronicles  to  have  been  the  consequence  of  the  unbelief  of  Ahaz,  and  his 
refusal  to  accept  the  divine  promise.     But  the  promise,  instead  of  being 
retracted,  is  renewed,  and  the  other  supposition  that  Pekah's  victory  pre- 
ceded what  is  here  recorded,  seems  to  agree  better  with  the  terror  of  xihaz, 
and  with  the  comparison  in  ver.  3.     Either  hypothesis,  however,  may  be 
entertained,  without  materially  aftectiug  the  details  of  the  interpretation. 
The  invaders  are  said  to  have  come  up  to  Jerusalem,  not  merely  as  a  military 
phrase  (A^itringa),   nor  with   exclusive   reference  to    its   natural    position 
(Knobel),  its  political  pre-eminence  (Henderson),  or  its  moral  elevation  (C. 
B.  Michaelis),  but  with  allusion,  more  or  less  distinct,  to  all  the  senses  in 
which  the  holy  city  was  above  all  others.     On  the  construction  of  Jeru- 
salem directly  with  the  verb  of  motion,  see  Gesenius,  §  116,  1. 

2.  And  it  ivas  told  the  house  of  David — the  court,  the  royal  family,  of 
Judah — saying,  Syria  resteth — or  is  resting — upon  Ephraim  :  and  his 
hccert — i.  e.  the  king's,  as  the  chief  and  representative  of  the  house  of 
DaAnd — and  the  heart  of  his  people  shook,  like  the  shaking  of  the  trees  of  a 
loood  before  a  luind.  'This  is  commonly  applied  to  the  effect  produced  by 
the  fii'st  news  of  the  coalition  between  Rezin  and  Pekah  or  the  junction  of 
their  forces.  The  oldest  writers  understand  the  news  to  be  that  Syria  is 
confederate  or  joined  with  Ephraim  (Septuagint,  Targum,  Peshito,  Yulgate, 
Calvin,  English  Yersion,  &c.).  Some,  however,  read  in  violation  of  the 
accents  i^[}},  and  translate  thus — Syria  is  marching  ov  leading  his  forces  to 


158  ISAIAH  riL  [Vee.  3. 

tcarJs  Epliraivi  (J.  I>.  Michaelis),  or  witli  Kphraivi  (Hcncierson).  Others, 
Syria  relics  vpon — or  is  sv} ported  ly — Ephraivi  (Lowih,  Barnc^).  O'.hers, 
Syria  ivflttevces  or  contrcls  Fpfnaivi (Vitriiif^a).  But  inost  inlcrpreters,  espe- 
cially tlic  laicai,  Syria  is  encaonped  upon  (the  territory  of)  7t};A7-o/??),  or,  as 
Stcudel  understands  it,  near  (the  cily  of)  Efhraim.  It  is  equally  natural, 
and  more  consistent  with  the  history,  to  understand  the  Avords  iis  having 
reference  to  a  later  date,  i.  e.  either  the  lime  of  the  adviincc  upon  Jeru- 
salem, or  that  of  the  reheat  of  the  invaders,  ladtn  with  the  spoil  of  Judah, 
and  with  two  hundred  thousand  captives.  In  the  one  case,  Syria,  i.  e.  the 
Syrian  army,  may  be  said  to  rest  vpon  (the  army  of)  Epitraim,  in  the 
modern  military  sense,  with  reference  to  their  relative  position  on  the  field 
of  battle  ;  in  the  other,  Syria  may  be  described  as  literally  restive)  or 
reposing  in  the  territory  of  Ephraim,  on  its  homeward  march,  and  as 
thereby  filling  Ahaz  with  the  apprehension  of  a  fresh  attack.  Althou<.'h 
neither  of  these  explanations  may  seem  altogether  natural,  they  are  really 
as  much  so  as  any  of  the  others  which  have  been  proposed,  and  in  a  case 
vhere  we  have  at  best  a  choice  of  difficulties,  these  may  claim  the  prefer- 
ence as  tending  to  harmonize  the  prophecy  with  history  as  given  both  in 
Kings  and  Chronicles.  We  read  in  2  Kings  xix.  7-9,  that  Ahaz  applied 
to  Tiglathpileser  king  of  Assyria,  to  help  him  against  Syria  and  Israel, 
•which  he  did.  At  what  precise  period  of  the  war  this  alliance  was  formed, 
it  is  not  easy  to  determine  ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  Ahaz,  at 
the  time  here  mentioned,  was  relying  upon  some  human  aid  in  preference 
to  God. — The  construction  of  the  feminine  verb  nnj  with  the  masculine 
C"li<  is  to  be  explained,  not  by  supplying  ri"lD'??3  (Jarchi)  or  Hiy  (Rosen- 
mliller)  before  the  latter,  but  by  the  idiomatic  usage  which  connects  the 
names  of  countries,  where  they  stand  for  the  inhabitants,  with  verbs  of 
this  form,  as  in  Job.  i.  15,  1  Sam.  xvii.  21,  and  2  Sam.  viii.  G,  where 
this  very  name  is  so  construed, 

3.  From  this  alarm  Isaiah  is  sent  to  free  the  king.  Aiid  Jehovah  said 
io  Isaiah  son  of  Amcz,  Go  out  to  meet  Ahaz,  thou  and  SIiearjasMd)  thywn, 
io  the  end  of  the  ccnduit  of  the  vpper  p:col,  to  the  hiyhuay  of  the  ful- 
ler sfiekl.  The  mention  of  these  now  obscure  localities,  although  it  detracts 
nothing  from  the  general  clearness  of  the  passage,  is  an  incidental  proof  of 
authenticity,  which  no  later  writer  would  or  could  have  forged.  The  Upper 
Pool,  which  has  been  placed  by  diflerent  writers  upon  almost  e^'ery  side  of 
Jerusalem,  is  idcntifieel  by  Eolinson  and  Smith  with  a  large  tank  at  the 
head  of  the  Vallcj-  of  Hinnom,  about  seven  hundred  yards  west  north-west 
from  the  Jaffa  gate.  It  is  full  in  the  rainy  season,  and  its  waters  are  then 
conducted  by  a  small  ruele  aqueduct  to  the  vicinitj^  of  the  gate  just  men- 
tioned, and  so  to  the  Pool  of  Hezekiah  within  the  walls.  Ihis  aqueduct  is 
probably  the  conduit  mentioned  in  the  text,  and  the  end  of  this  conduit  the 
point  where  it  enters  the  city,  as  appears  from  the  fact,  that  when  Ralsha- 
keh  afterwards  conferred  with  the  ministers  of  Hezekiah  at  this  same  S|  ot, 
lie  was  heard  by  the  people  on  the  city  wall  (chap,  xxxvi.  2,  12.)  Fn  m 
the  same  passage  it  may  be  inferred  that  this  was  a  frequented  spot,  which 
some  suppose  to  be  the  reason  that  Isaiah  was  directed  to  it,  while  others 
tinderstaud  the  elirection  as  implying  that  Ahaz  was  about  to  fortify  tlio 
city,  or  rather  to  cut  ofi'  a  supply  of  water  from  the  invaders,  as  Hezekiah 
afterwards  did  when  besieged  by  Sennacherib  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  4) ;  an  ex- 
ample-often  followed  afterwards,  particularly  in  the  sieges  of  Jerusalem  by 
Pompey,  Titus,  and  Godfrey  of  Bouillon.  The  Prophet  is  therefore  com- 
manded ioyo  out,  not  merely  from  his  house,  but  Irem  the  cily,  to  meet 


Yer.  4.]  ISAIAH  VII.  159 

Ahci~,  whicli  does  not  imply  that  the  king  was  seeking  him,  or  coming  to 
him,  but  merelj'  specifies  the  object  which  he  M'as  to  seek  himself.  For 
the  various  opinions  with  respect  to  the  position  of  the  Upper  Pool — so 
called  in  relation  to  the  Lower  Pool,  mentioned  in  chap.  xxii.  9,  and  situ- 
ated lower  down  in  the  same  valley,  south  of  the  Jafi'a  gate — see  Rosen- 
miiller,  Gesenius,  and  Hitzig  on  this  passage,  Winer's  Healwbrterbuch 
s.  V.  Teiche,  and  Robinson's  Palestine,  vol.  i.  pp.  352,  483.  The  Fuller's 
Field  was  of  course  without  the  city,  and  the  highway  or  causeway  men- 
tioned may  have  led  either  to  it  or  along  it,  so  as  to  divide  it  from  the 
aqueduct.  The  command  to  take  his  son  with  him  might  be  regarded 
merely  as  an  incidental  circumstance,  but  for  the  fact  that  the  name  Shear- 
jashub  is  significant,  and  as  we  may  suppose  it  to  have  been  already  known, 
and  the  people  were  familiar  with  the  practice  of  conveying  instruction  in 
this  form,  the  very  sight  of  the  child  would  perhaps  suggest  a  prophecy,  or 
recall  one  previously  uttered,  or  at  least  prepare  the  mind  for  one  to  come  ; 
and  accordingly  we  find  in  chap.  x.  21  this  very  phrase  employed,  not  as 
a  name,  but  in  its  proper  sense,  a  remnant  shall  return.  Cocceius  assigns 
two  other  reasons  for  the  presence  of  the  child — that  he  might  early  learn 
the  duties  of  a  prophet — and  that  the  sight  of  him  might  prove  to  all  who 
heard  the  ensuing  prophecy,  that  the  mother  mentioned  in  ver.  14  could 
not  be  the  Prophet's  wife.  But  this  precaution  would  have  answered  little 
purpose  against  modern  licence  of  conjecture  ;  for  Gesenius  does  not  scruple 
to  assume  a  second  mai'riage. 

4.  The  assurance,  by  which  Ahaz  is  encouraged,  is  that  the  danger  is 
over,  that  the  tire  is  nearly  quenched,  that  the  enemies,  who  lately  seemed 
like  flaming  firebrands  of  war,  are  now  mere  smoking  ends  of  firebrands  ; 
he  is  therefore  exhorted  to  be  quiet  and  confide  in  the  divine  protection. 
And  ihoti  shalt  say  to  him,  Be  cautious  and  he  quiet — or  take  care  to  be 
quiet — fear  not,  nor  let  thy  heart  be  soft,  before — or  on  account  of — these 
two  smoking  tails  of  firebrands,  in  the  heat  of  the  anger  of  Rezin  and  Syria 
and  the  son  of  Hemaliah.  The  comparison  of  Rezin  and  Pekah  to  the  tails  or 
ends  of  firebrands,  instead  of  firebrands  themselves,  is  not  a  mere  expres- 
sion of  contempt,  as  most  interpreters  suppose,  nor  a  mere  intimation  of 
their  approaching  fate,  as  Barnes  and  Henderson  explain  it,  but  a  distinct 
allusion  to  the  evil  which  they  had  alreadj^  done,  and  which  should  never 
be  repeated.  If  the  emphasis  were  only  in  the  use  of  the  word  tails,  the 
tail  of  anything  else  would  have  been  equally  appropriate.  The  smoking 
remnant  of  a  firebrand  implies  a  previous  flame,  if  not  a  conflagration. 
This  confirms  the  conclus^ion  before  drawn,  that  Judah  had  already  been 
ravaged,  and  that  the  narrative  in  Kings  and  Chronicles  are  perfectly  con- 
sistent and  relate  to  the  same  subject.  The  older  versions  construe  the 
demonstrative  with  firebrands — "  the  tails  of  these  two  smoking  firebrands;" 
the  moderns  'more  correctly  with  tails — "  these  two  tails  or  ends  of  smoking 
firebrands." — The  last  clause  of  the  verse  is  not  to  be  construed  with  D^Jt^•y — 
"  smoking  in  the  anger  of  Rezin,"  &c.,  but  with  the  verbs  preceding — "fear 
not,  nor  let  thy  heart  be  faint  in  the  anger,"  &c.  The  reason  implied  in 
the  connection  is  that  the  hot  fire  of  their  anger  was  now  turned  to  smoke 
and  almost  quenched. — The  distinct  mention  of  Rezin  and  Syria,  while 
Pekah  is  simply  termed  the  son  of  Remaliah,  is  supposed  by  some  to  be 
intended  to  express  contempt  for  the  latter,  though  the  diflerencc  may  after 
all  be  accidental,  or  have  only  a  rhythmical  design.  The  patronymic,  like 
cur  English  surname,  can  be  used  contemptuouslj^  only  when  it  indicates 
ignoble  origin,   in  which  sense  it  may  be  appHed  to  Pekah,  who  was  a 


100  ISAIAH  VI I.  [Ver.  5,  6. 

usurper,  as  the  enemies  of  Napolecm  always  chose  to  call  him  Buonaparie, 
liocuusc  the  name  hetrayod  an  origiii  both  foreign  and  obscure. 

5.  Jiccause  Sijria  has  deviseil,  militated,  purposed,  evil  ar/ainxt  thee,  oho 
F.plifaim  and  RemaliaWs  son,  saijimj.  Hendcwerk,  and  most  of  the  early 
writers,  connect  this  with  what  goes  before,  as  a  further  explanation  of  the 
king's  teiTor — "fear  not,  nor  let  thy  heart  be  faint,  because  Syria,"  &c. 
But  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Henderson,  Ewald  and  Umbreit,  make  it  the  begin- 
ning of  a  sentence,  the  apodosis  of  which  is  contained  in  ver.  7 — "  because 
(or  although)  Syria  has  devised,  kc,  therefore  (or  nevertheless)  thus  saith 
the  Lord,"  &c.  The  constructions  may  be  blended  by  regarding  this 
verse  and  the  next  as  a  link  or  connecting  clause  between  the  exhorta- 
tion in  ver.  4,  and  the  promise  in  ver.  7.  "  Fear  not  because  Syria  and 
Israel  thus  threaten,  for  on  that  very  account  the  Tjord  declares,"  Ac. 
Here  again  Syria  appears  as  the  prime  agent  and  controlling  power, 
although  Ephraim  is  added  in  the  second  clause.  The  suppression  of 
Pekah's  proper  name  in  this  clause,  and  of  Rezin's  altogether  in  the 
first,  has  given  rise  to  various  far-fetched  explanations,  though  it  seems 
in  fact  to  shew,  that  the  use  of  names  in  the  whole  passage  is  rather 
euphonic  or  rhythmical  than  significant. 

6.  The  invaders  themselves  are  now  introduced  as  holding  counsel 
or  addressing  one  another,  not  at  the  present  moment,  but  at  the  time 
when  their  plan  was  first  concerted.  We  icill  e/o  up,  or  let  us  go  up, 
into  Jndah,  or  arjainst  it,  although  this  is  rather  implied  than  expressed, 
and  re.t'  (i.  e.  harass  or  distress)  it,  and  make  a  breach  in  it,  (thereby 
subduing  it)  to  ourselves,  and  let  iis  make  a  Icinrf  in  the  midst  of  it,  to 
ivit,  the  son  of  Taheai  or  Tabecl,  as  the  name  is  WTitten  out  of  pause, 
Ezra  iv.  7.  The  feminine  suffixes  probably  refer,  not  to  Jndah  (Hen- 
derson) but  to  Jerusalem  (Gesenius,  Kosenmiiller),  although  the  same 
terms  are  applied  to  the  whole  country  elsewhere  (2  Chron.  xxi.  17). 
The  reference  to  Jerusalem  is  required  b}'  this  history,  according 
to  which  they  did  succeed  in  their  attack  upon  the  kingdom,  but 
were  foiled  in  their  main  design  of  conquering  the  royal  city.  The 
enti'ance  into  Judah  was  proposed  only  as  a  means  to  this  end,  and 
it  is  the  failure  of  this  end  that  is  predicted  in  the  next  verse.  The 
reference  to  the  city  is  also  recommended  by  the  special  reference  to 
the  capital  cities  of  SjTia  and  Ephraim  in  vers.  8,  9.  '^?V''i??  is  explained 
to  mean  Jet  us  arouse  her  by  the  Vulgate  (suscitemus  earn),  Luther  (auf- 
wecken),  Calvin  and  others,  which  supposes  the  verb  to  be  derived  from 
)*^i?n  (I'i^r)  io  aivahen.  Others,  deriving  it  from  ]*Vi^  to  cut  off,  explain  it  to 
mean  let  us  dismember  or  divide  it  (Yitringa,  Augusti),  or  subvert,  destroy 
it  (Peshito,  J.  D,  Michaelis,  Schroeder,  Henderson).  The  simplest  etymo- 
logv,  and  that  most  commonly  adopted,  derives  it  from  pP  to  be  distressed 
or  terrijied,  and  in  the  Hiphil  to  alarm  (Hitzig),  or  to  distress,  with  special 
reference  to  the  hardships  of  a  siege  (Kimchi,  Aben  Ezra,  Cocceius,  Rosen- 
niiiller,  Gesenius,  Ewald,  &c.).  Oppress  (Barnes)  is  too  indefinite.  The 
other  verb  has  also  been  variously  explained,  as  meaning  let  us  level  it 
(from  n^p3,  a  plain),  let  us  tear  it  away  (Vulgate :  avellamus  ad  nos),  let 
us  divide  or  rend  it  (Luther,  Cocceius,  Alting,  J.  W.  Michaelis,  Vitringa, 
Barnes).  It  is  now  commonly  agi'eed,  however,  that  it  means  to  make  a 
breach  or  opening  (Calvin :  faire  bresche  on  ouverture,  Ilendewerk,  Hen- 
derson), and  thereby  take  or  conquer  (Ewald,  Knobel).  The  creation  of 
tributary  kings  by  conquerors  is  mentioned  elsewhere  in  the  sacred  history 
{e.g.  2  kings  xxiii.  34,  xxiv.  17).    Son  of  Tabeal  like  Son  of  Remaliah,  is 


Vkr.  7-9.]  ISAIAH  VII.  161 

commonly  explained  as  a  contemptuous  expression,  implying  obscurity  or 
mean  extraction.  But  such  an  expression  would  hardly  have  been  put  into 
the  mouths  of  his  patrons,  unless  we  suppose  that  they  selected  him  ex- 
pressly on  account  of  his  ignoble  origin  or  insignificance,  which  is  a  very 
improbable  assumption.  They  would  be  far  more  likely  to  bestow  the 
crown  on  some  prince,  either  of  Ephraim  or  Syria,  which  some  suppose  to 
be  implied  in  the  S^'riac  fonn  of  the  name,  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew 
Tohijah  (Neh.  ii.  15),  and  analogous  to  Tahrimmon,  from  whom  Benhadad 
king  of  Syria  was  descended  (1  Kings  xv.  18).  So  in  Ezra  iv.  7.  Tahcel 
is  named  as  one  of  those  who  wrote  to  the  king  in  the  Syrian  (Ai'amean) 
tongue.  This  whole  speculation,  though  ingenious,  and  illustrated  by 
Gesenius  with  a  profusion  of  etymological  learning  (Comm.  vol.  i.  p.  281, 
note),  is  probably  fanciful,  and  certainly  of  no  exegetical  importance,  which 
last  is  also  true  of  Calvin's  suggestion  that  the  Son  of  Tabeal  may  have 
been  a  disaffected  Jew,  There  is  something  curious  in  the  Jewish  expla- 
nation of  the  name  by  that  form  of  the  ccwhala  called  Albam  (because  it 
puts  a  for  I,  b,  for  m,  and  so  forth,  as  identical  with  X?DT  (/.  q.  rivD")).  A 
more  important  observation  is,  that  this  familiar  reference  en  passa)it  to 
the  names  of  persons  cow  forgotten,  as  j^  familiar  to  contemporary  readers, 
is  a  strong  incidental  proof  of  authenticity. 

7.  TJnis  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  it  shall  not  stand — or  it  shall  not  arise 
— a)id  it  shall  not  be,  or  come  to  pass.  This,  as  was  said  before,  is  taken 
by  Gesenius  and  others  as  the  conclusion  of  a  sentence  beginning  in  ver.  5, 
but  may  just  as  naturally  be  explained  as  the  commencement  of  a  new  one. 
The  feminine  verbs  may  be  referred  to  counsel  (i^V^)  understood  or  taken 
indefinitely,  which  is  a  common  Hebrew  construction.  (  Vide  supra,  chap, 
i.  6.)  As  D-1p  means  both  to  rise  and  stand,  the  idea  here  expressed  may 
be  either  that  the  thing  proposed  shall  not  even  come  into  existence  (Hit- 
zig),  or  that  it  shall  not  continue  or  be  permanent  (Gesenius,  Hengsten- 
berg,  Hendewerk,  Ewald,  Umbreit).  The  general  sense  is  clear,  viz.,  that 
their  design  should  be  defeated.  The  name  nin*,  being  here  preceded  by 
V"'^  takes  the  vowels  of  D?n?^.  The  accumulation  of  divine  names  is,  as 
usual,  emphatic,  and  seems  here  intended  to  afford  a  pledge  of  the  event, 
derived  from  the  supremacy  and  power  of  the  Being  who  predicts  it. 

8,  9.  The  plans  of  the  enemy  cannot  be  accomplished,  because  God  has 
decreed  that  while  the  kingdoms  of  Syria  and  Israel  continue  to  exist,  they 
shall  remain  without  enlargement,  or  at  least  without  the  addition  of  Jeru- 
salem or  Judah  to  their  ten'itories.  It  shall  not  stand  or  come  to  pass, 
because  the  head  (or  capital)  of  Aram  is  Damascus  (and  shall  be  so  still), 
and  the  head  (chief  or  sovereign)  of  Damascus  is  Eezin  (and  shall  be  so 
still — and  as  for  the  other  power  there  is  as  little  cause  of  fear)  for  in  yet 
sixty  and  five  years  (in  sixty- five  years  more)  shall  Ephraim  be  broken  from 
a  people  {i.e.  from  being  a  people,  so  as  not  to  be  a  people — and  even  in 
the  mean  time,  it  shall  not  be  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  Judah)  for  the 
head  (or  capital)  of  Ephraim  is  Samaria,  and  the  head  (chief  or  sovereign) 
of  Samaria  is  Remaliah's  son.  If  you  luill  not  believe  (it  is)  because  you 
are  not  to  be  established.  Here  again  Syria  is  the  prominent  object,  and 
Ephraim  subjoined,  as  if  by  an  afterthought.  The  order  of  ideas  is  that 
Syria  shall  remain  as  it  is,  and  as  for  Ephraim  it  is  soon  to  be  destroyed, 
but  while  it  does  last,  it  shall  remain  as  it  is  likewise ;  Pekah  shall  neA'^er 
reign  in  any  other  capital,  nor  Samaria  be  the  capital  of  any  other  king- 
dom.   To  this  natural  expression  of  the  thought  corresponds  the  rhythmical 

VOL.  I.  L 


162  ISAIAH  VII.  [Ver.  8,  9. 

arrangement  of  the  sentences,  the  first  clause  of  the  eighth  verse  answering 
exactly  to  the  first  clause  of  the  ninth,  while  the  two  last  clauses,  though 
dissimilar,  complete  the  measure. 

For  the  head  of  Syria  is  Damascus — 
Aud  the  liead  of  Damascus  Kezin — 

And  in  sixty-five  years  more,  &c. 
And  the  head  of  Ephraim  is  Samaria — 
And  the  head  of  Samaria  Ivemaliah's  son  — 

If  yo  will  not  heHeve,  &c. 

Whether  this  ho  poetry  or  not,  its  structure  is  as  regular  as  that  of  any 
other  period  of  equal  length  in  the  writings  of  Isaiah.  As  to  the  substance 
of  these  verses,  the  similar  clauses  have  ah-eady  been  explained,  as  a  pre- 
diction that  the  two  invading  powers  should  remain  without  enlargement. 
The  first  of  the  uneven  clauses,  i.e.  the  last  of  ver,  8,  adds  to  this  predic- 
tion, that  Ephraim,  or  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  shall  cease  to  exist 
within  a  prescribed  period,  which  period  is  so  defined  as  to  include  the 
three  successive  strokes  by  which  that  power  was  annihilated — first,  the 
invasion  of  Tiglath-pileser,  two  or  three  years  after  the  date  of  this  predic- 
tion (2  Kings  XV.  29  ;  x^i.  9) — then,  the  conquest  of  ^Samaria,  aud  the 
deportation  of  the  ten  tribes,  by  Shalmaneser,  about  the  sixth  year  of 
Hezekiah  (2  Kings  xvii.  6) — and  finally,  the  introduction  of  another  race 
by  Esar-haddon  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh  (2  Kings  xvii.  24  ;  Ezra  iv.  2  ; 
2  Chron.  xxxiii.  11).  Within  sixty-five  years  all  these  events  were  to 
occur,  and  Ephraim,  in  all  these  senses,  was  to  cease  to  be  a  people.  It 
seems  then  that  the  language  of  this  clause  has  been  carefully  selected,  so 
as  to  include  the  three  events  which  might  be  represented  us  destructive  of 
Ephraim,  while  in  form  it  balances  the  last  clause  of  the  next  verse,  and  is 
therefore  essential  to  the  rhythmical  completeness  of  the  passage.  And 
yet  this  very  clause  has  been  rejected  as  a  gloss,  not  only  by  Houbigant, 
and  others  of  that  school,  but  by  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  and  ICnobel, 
expressly  on  the  ground  that  it  violates  the  truth  of  history  aud  the 
parallelism  of  the  sentence.  In  urging  the  latter  reason  none  of  these 
critics  seem  to  have  observed  that  the  omission  of  the  clause  would  leave 
the  verses  unequal ;  while  the  puerile  suggestion  that  the  similar  clauses 
ought  to  come  together,  would  apply  to  any  case  in  Greek,  Latin,  or  modern 
poetry,  where  two  balanced  verses  are  divided  by  a  line  of  different  length 
or  termination,  as  in  the  Stahat  Mater  or  Cowper's  Ode  to  Friendship. 
Such  an  objection  to  the  clause  is  especially  surprising  on  the  part  of  those 
who  insist  upon  subjecting  even  Hebrew  prose  to  the  principles,  if  not  the 
lilies,  of  Greek  and  Latin  prosody. — As  to  the  more  serious  historical  ob- 
jection, it  is  applicable  only  to  the  theory  of  Usher,  Lowth,  Hengstenberg, 
and  Henderson,  that  the  conquest  of  Israel  by  Tiglath-pileser  and  Shal- 
maneser are  excluded  from  the  prophecy,  and  that  it  has  relation  solely  to 
what  took  place  under  Esar-haddon  ;  whereas  all  three  are  included.  If  a 
historian  should  say  that  in  one  and  twenty  years  from  the  beginning  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  the  Emperor  Napoleon  had  ceased  to  be,  he  could 
not  be  charged  with  the  error  of  reckoning  to  the  time  of  his  death,  instead 
of  his  first  or  second  abdication,  because  all  these  would  be  really  included, 
and  the  larger  temi  chosen  only  for  the  purpose  of  embracing  every  sense  in 
which  the  Emperor  ceased  to  be.  So  in  the  case  before  us,  the  invasion  by 
Tiglath-pileser,  and  the  deportation  by  Shalmaneser  are  included,  but  the 
term  of  sixty-five  years  is  assigned,  because  with  it  expired  every  possible 
pretension  of  the  ten  tribes  to  be  reckoned  as  a  state  or  nation,  though  the 


Yeb.  8,  9.]  ISAIAH  VII.  1G3 

real  do^vllf\^ll  of  the  government  had  happened  many  years  before.  Nor  is 
it  improbable  that  if  the  shorter  periods  of  three  or  twenty  years  had  been 
named,  the  same  class  of  critics  would  have  made  the  exclusion  of  the  wind- 
ing up  under  Esar-haddon  a  ground  of  similar  objection  to  the  clause. 
The  propriety  of  including  this  event  is  clear  from  the  repeated  mention  of 
Israel  as  a  people  still  subsisting  until  it  took  place  (2  Kings  xxiii.  19,  20; 
2  Chron.  xxxiv.  6,  7 ;  xxxv.  18),  and  from  the  fact  that  Esar-haddon  placed  his 
colonists  in  the  cities  of  Samaria,  instead  of  the  children  of  Israel  (2  Kings 
xxvii.  24),  thereby  completing  their  destruction  as  a  people.  The  same 
considerations  furnish  an  answer  to  the  objection  that  the  time  fixed  for  the 
overthrow  of  Ephraim  is  too  remote  to  allay  the  fears  of  Ahaz ;  not  to  men- 
tion that  this  was  only  one  design  of  the  prediction,  and  that  the  encourage-- 
ment  was  meant  to  be  afforded  by  what  follow^s,  and  which  seems  to  have 
been  added  for  the  very  purpose,  as  if  he  had  said,  "  Ephraim  is  to  last  but 
sixty-five  years  at  most,  and  even  ichile  it  does  last  the  head,"  &c.  That  the 
order  of  the  numerals,  si.i'ty  and  five  instead  oifive  and  sixty  is  no  proof  of 
later  origin  (Gesenius),  may  be  inferred  from  the  occm-rence  of  the  same 
collocation  at  least  three  times  in  Genesis  (iv.  24,  xviii.  28,  xlvi.  15).  The 
alleged  inconsistency  between  this  clause  and  ver.  16  rests  on  a  gratuitous 
assumption  that  the  desolation  threatened  there  and  the  destruction  here 
are  perfectly  identical.  To  allege  that  "IIV^  is  elsewhere  used  to  denote  the 
precise  time  of  an  event  (Gen.  xl,  13,  19;  Josh.  i.  11,  iii,  2;  Jer.  xxviii. 
3,  11),  is  only  to  allege  that  a  general  expression  admits  of  a  specific  appli- 
cation. The  Hebrew  phrase  corresponds  exactly  to  the  EugUsh  phrase  in 
sixty-five  years  more,  and  like  it  may  be  either  applied  to  something  happen- 
ing at  the  end  of  that  period,  or  to  something  happening  at  any  time  within 
it,  or  to  both,  which  is  really  its  application  here.  To  the  objection  that 
the  precise  date  of  the  immigration  under  Esar-haddon  is  a  matter  of  con- 
jecture, the  answer  is,  that  since  this  event  and  the  sixty-fifth  year  from 
the  date  of  the  prediction  both  fall  within  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  the  sup- 
position that  they  coincide  is  less  improbable  than  the  supposition  that  they 
do  not.  To  reject  the  clause  on  such  a  ground  is  to  assume  that  whatever 
is  not  proved  (or  rather  twice  proved)  must  be  false,  ho\vever  probable. 
Enough  has  now  been  said,  not  only  to  vindicate  the  clause  as  genuine,  but 
to  preclude  the  necessity  of  computing  the  sixty- five  years  from  any  other 
period  than  the  date  of  the  prediction,  as  for  instance  from  the  death  of 
Jeroboam  II.,  with  Cocceius,  or  from  the  leprosy  of  Uzziah  with  the  Rabbuis, 
both  which  hypotheses,  if  necessary,  might  be  plausibly  defended.  It  also 
supersedes  the  necessity  of  emendation  in  the  text.  Grotius  and  Cappellug 
drop  the  plural  termination  of  D''t^'EJ'  and  thus  convert  it  into  six.  But  even 
if  Isaiah  could  have  wi'itten  six  and  five  instead  of  eleven,  the  latter  number 
would  be  too  small,  as  Capellus  in  his  computation  overlooks  an  interregnum 
which  the  best  chronologers  assume  between  Pekah  and  Hoshea.  See 
Gesenius  in  loc.  Vitringa  supposes  C^'Om  D''£^*J^  to  have  arisen  out  of  "'^^ 
E'Dni  (a  common  abbreviation  in  Hebrew  manuscripts,  and  this  out  of"*  ^^ 
t5*Dni,  six,  ten,  and  five,  the  exact  number  of  years  between  the  prophecy  and 
Shalmaneser's  conquest,  viz.  sixteen  of  Ahaz  and  five  of  Hezekiah,  which  he 
therefore  supposes  to  be  separately  stated.  But  even  if  letters  were  used 
for  ciphers  in  Isaiah's  time,  which  is  highly  improbable,  it  is  still  more  im- 
probable that  both  modes  of  notation  would  have  been  mixed  up  in  a  single 
number.  Gesenius  sneers  at  Vitringa's  thanking  God  for  the  discoveiy  of 
this  emendation  ;  but  it  is  more  than  matched  by  two  of  later  date  and  Ger- 
man origin.    Steudel  proposes  to  read  nbC'  (for  HJt^)  in  the  sense  of  repeatedly ^ 


164  ISAIAH  VII.  [Vkr.  10,  11. 

and  to  supply  days  after  t>i.iii/-j'ire!  Hemlowerk  more  boldly  reads  WC'^  Hiy? 
nil?'  t'ph)  uhile  the  robbers  and  the  nnirdrrrr  are  a  sleep  (/.  e.  asleep)!  This 
he  thinks  so  schon  uud  herrlkh,  and  the  light  which  it  sheds  ho  (janz  icimder- 
bar,  that  he  even  prefers  it  to  HensJer's  proposition  to  read  six  or  five,  (i.  q. 
five  or  six,)  i.  e.  a  few.  Lnzzato  f»ive  this  latter  sense  to  the  common  test, 
which  he  explains  as  a  round  number,  or  rather  as  two  round  numbers,  sixtn 
being  used  in  the  Talmud  indefinitely  for  a  largo  number,  and  //re  even  in 
Scripture  for  a  small  one.  Ewald  seems  willing  to  admit  that  sixtij-fire 
itself  is  here  put  as  a  period  somewhat  shorter  than  the  term  of  human  life, 
but  rejects  the  clause  as  a  (juotation  from  an  older  prophecy,  transferred 
from  the  margin  to  the  text  of  Isaiah.  Besides  these  emendations  of  the 
text,  the  view  which  has  been  taken  of  the  prophecy  enables  us  to  dispense 
with  various  forced  constructions  of  the  first  clause — such  as  Aben  Ezra's 
— "  it  shall  not  come  to  pass  (with  respect  to  you)  but  (with  respect  to)  the 
head  of  Syria  (which  is)  Damascus,  &c."  Or  this — "  Though  the  head  of 
Syria  is  Damascus  (a  great  city),  and  the  head  of  Damascus  is  Reziu  (a 
gi'eat  prince),  yet  in  sixty-five  years,  &c."  Hitzig  reverses  this,  and  makes 
it  an  expression  of  contempt — "  for  the  head  of  Syria  is  (only)  Damascus, 
and  the  head  of  Damascus  (only)  llezin  (a  smoking  fire-brand)." — The  last 
clause  of  the  verse  has  also  been  variously  construed.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
supposes  a  threatening  or  indignant  pause  in  the  midst  of  it — "  If  ye  will 
not  believe — for  (I  see  that)  ye  will  not  believe."  Grotius  makes  it  interro- 
gative— "  "n'ill  ye  not  believe,  unless  je  are  confirmed  "  or  assui'ed  by  a 
sign  ?  The  construction  now  most  commonly  adopted  makes  ""S  a  participle 
of  asseveration  (Rosenmiiller,  Henderson)  or  even  of  swearing  (Maurer),  or 
supposes  it  to  introduce  the  apodosis  and  to  be  equivalent  to  tlwii  (Gesenius). 
Luther's  version  of  the  clause,  thus  understood,  has  been  much  admii'ed, 
as  a  successful  imitation  of  the  paronomasia  in  Hebrew  :  (lUiuhct  iJir  nichl, 
so  bleihet  ilu  nicht.  This  explanation  of  the  clause  is  strongly  favoured  by 
the  analog;\'  of  2  Clu'on.  xx.  20 ;  but  another  equally  natural  is  the  one 
already  given  in  translation — "  if  ye  do  not  believe  (it  is)  because  ye  are 
not  to  be  established."  For  other  constructions  and  conjectural  emenda- 
tions of  the  several  clauses,  see  Gesenius  and  llosenmiiller  on  the  passage. 

10.  A)id  Jehovah  added  to  speak  unto  Ahaz,  sayiiKj, — which,  according 
to  usage,  may  either  mean  that  he  spoke  ar/aln,  on  a  different  occasitm,  or 
that  he  spoke  further,  on  the  same  occasion,  which  last  is  the  meaning  here. 
This  verse,  it  is  true,  is  supposed  to  commence  a  new  division  of  the  pro- 
phecy by  Ewald,  and  an  entirely  distinct  prediction  by  Hendewerk,  who 
connects  it  with  the  close  of  the  fifth  chapter,  and  bj'  Henderson,  who  re- 
gards all  that  follows  as  having  reference  to  the  invasion  of  Judah  by  Assyria. 
A  sufficient  refutation  of  the  two  last  hypothesis  is  involved  in  the  admission 
made  by  both  these  writers,  that  the  offer  of  a  sign  has  reference  to  nothing 
in  the  context,  but  to  something  not  recorded ;  whereas  it  was  naturally 
called  forth  by  the  incredulity  which  some  suppose  to  have  been  betrayed 
by  the  king's  silence  (Hcngstenberg)  or  his  looks  (Rosenmiiller),  and  which 
is  certainly  referred  to  in  the  last  clause  of  ver.  9. 

11.  Ask  for  thee  («'.  e.  for  thy  own  satisfaction)  a  sign  from  Jehovah 
thy  God  (literally  from  with  him,  i.  e.  from  his  presence  and  his  power) 
— ask  deep  or  hhjh  above — or  make  deep  thy  request  or  make  it  hiijh — 
i.  e.  ask  it  either  above  or  below.  A  siyn  is  not  necessarily  a  miracle, 
nor  necessarily  a  prophecy,  but  a  sensible  pledge  of  the  truth  of  some- 
thing else,  whether  present,  past,  or  future  ;  sometimes  consisting  in  a 
miracle  (Isa.  xxxviii.  8;  Judges  vi.  xxxvii.;  Exod.  iv.  8),  but  sometimes 


Vek.  12,  13.J  ISAIAH  VII.  165 

in  a  mere  prediction  (Exod.  iii.  12  ;  1  Sam.  ii.  xxxiv.  ;  2  Kings  xix.  29), 
and  sometimes  only  in  a  symbol,  especially  a  symbolical  name  or  action 
(Isa.  xxxviii.  18,  xx.  3  ;  Ezek.  iv.  8).  The  sign  here  offered  is  a  proof 
of  Isaiah's  divine  legation,  which  Abaz  seemed  to  doubt.  He  is  allowed 
to  choose,  not  only  the  place  of  its  exhibition  (Pliischke),  but  the  sign 
itself.  The  offer  is  a  general  one,  including  all  the  kinds  of  signs  which 
have  been  mentioned,  though  the  only  one  which  would  have  answered  the 
purpose  of  accrediting  the  Prophet,  was  a  present  miracle,  as  in  the  case  of 
Moses  (Exod.  iv.  30).  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion,  seem  to  have 
read  '"l^'^P'  to  the  grave  or  loioer  world  (/Sai)i/i/oi/  si;  a^jji-),  which  is  adopted 
by  Jerome,  Michaelis,  Lowth,  and  also  by  Ewald  but  without  a  change  of 
text,  as  he  supposes  n?i<^  to  be  simply  a  euphonic  variation  for  nPH.^  in- 
tended to  assimilate  it  to  '"IPyD?.  Thus  understood,  the  word  may  refer 
to  the  opening  of  the  earth  or  the  raising  of  the  dead,  in  opposition  to 
a  miracle  in  heaven.  But  as  heaven  is  not  particularly  mentioned,  there  is 
no  need  of  departing  from  the  old  explanation  of  HPNEi^  as  a  paragogic  im- 
perative (comp.  Dan.  ix.  19 ;  Ps.  xli.  4),  signifying  ask  thou.  The  two 
preceding  verbs  may  then  be  taken  also  as  imperatives,  go  deep,  ask,  i.  e. 
in  asking,  or  as  infinitives  equivalent  to  adverbs,  ask  deep,  ask  high ;  or 
the  construction  may  be  siiiiplified  still  further  by  explaining  H^N^i'  as  a 
noun  equivalent  to  '"IPN^',  and  governed  directly  by  the  two  verbs  as  im- 
peratives— make  deep  {thy)  request,  make  (it)  high.  There  may  either  be 
a  reference  to  the  distinction  between  signs  in  heaven  and  signs  on  earth 
(Mat.  xvi.  1),  which  Jerome  illustrates  by  the  case  of  the  Egyptian  plagues, 
or  the  words  may  be  more  indefinitely  understood  as  meaning  any  tvhere, 
up  or  down,  above  or  below  (Calvin).  The  phrase  thy  God  is  emphatic 
and  intended  to  remind  Ahaz  of  his  official  relation  to  Jehovah,  and  as  it 
were  to  afford  him  a  last  opportunity  of  profiting  by  the  connection. 

12.  And  Ahaz  said,  I  loill  not  ask,  and  I  toill  not  tempt  Jehovah.  Some 
regard  this  as  a  contemptuous  irony,  implying  a  belief  that  God  would  not 
be  able  to  perform  his  promise  (Grotius,  Gesenius,  &c.),  or  a  disbelief  in 
the  existence  of  a  personal  God  (Umbreit).  We  have  no  reason  to  doubt, 
however,  that  Ahaz  believed  in  the  existence  of  Jehovah,  at  least  as  one 
among  many  gods,  as  a  local  and  national  if  not  a  supreme  deity.  It  is 
bettor,  therefore,  to  understand  the  words  as  a  hypocritical  excuse  for  not 
obeying  the  command,  with  obvious  allusion  to  the  prohibition  in  Deut, 
vi.  0,  which  is  of  course  inapplicable  to  the  case  of  one  who  is  exhorted  to 
choose.  His  refusal  probably  arose  not  from  speculative  doubts  or  poHtic 
considerations,  but  from  the  state  of  his  affections,  his  aversion  to  the  ser- 
vice of  Jehovah,  and  his  predilection  for  that  of  other  gods,  perhaps  com- 
bined with  a  belief  that  in  this  case  human  aid  would  be  sufficient  and  a 
divine  interposition  superfluous  ;  to  which  may  be  added  a  specific  expec- 
tation of  assistance  from  Assyria,  for  which  he  had  perhaps  ah-eady  sued 
(2  Ivings  xvi.  7-9).  To  tempt  God  is  not  to  try  him  in  the  way  of  trust- 
ing him  (Hoheisel),  nor  simply  to  call  in  question  his  power,  knowledge, 
or  veracity  (Gesenius,  Hitzig),  but  to  put  him  practically  to  the  test.  The 
character  of  Ahaz  is  illustrated  by  a  comparison  of  this  refusal  with  the 
thankful  acceptance  of  such  signs  by  others,  and  especially  by  his  own  son 
Hezekiah,  to  whom,  as  Jerome  observes,  signs  both  in  heaven  and  on 
earth  were  granted. 

13.  At  first  Ahaz  seemed  to  doubt  only  the  authority  and  divine  lega- 
tion of  the  Prophet ;  but  his  refusal  to  accept  the  offered  attestation  was 


16G  ISAIAn  VI L  [Vek.  14. 

an  insult  to  God  himself,  and  is  therefore  indignantly  rebuked  by  the  Pro- 
phet. And  he  said,  hear,  T  pray  you,  oh  house  of  David  !  is  it  too  little  for 
you  (is  it  not  for  you)  to  weary  men  {i.  e.  to  try  mens'  iiatience)  that  you 
(must)  iceary  (or  tiy  the  patience  of)  my  God  ?  The  meaning  is  not  merely 
that  it  is  worse  to  weary  God  than  man  (Chrysostom),  or  that  it  was  not 
man  but  God  whom  they  were  wearying  (Jerome) ;  Lut  that  having  first 
wearied  man,  i.  e.  the  Prophet  by  disputing  his  commission,  .they  were  now 
wearying  God,  by  refusing  the  oflered  attestation.  niNpn  is  not  to 
regard  as  weak  or  impotent  (Kimchi),  but  to  try  or  exhaust  the  patience 
of  another.  The  plural  form  of  the  adcbess  does  not  imply  that  the  Prophet 
turned  away  from  Ahaz  to  others  (Jerome),  but  that  members  of  his  family 
and  court  were,  in  the  Prophet's  view,  already  implicated  in  his  unbelief. 
V  14.  The  king  having  refused  to  ask  a  sign,  the  Prophet  gives  him  one, 
by  renewing  the  promise  of  deliverance  (vers.  8,  9),  and  connecting  it  with 
the  birth  of  a  child,  whose  significant  name  is  made  a  svTnbol  of  the  divine 
interposition,  and  his  progi-ess  a  measure  of  the  subsequent  events.  In- 
stead of  saying  that  God  would  be  present  to  deliver  them,  he  says  the 
child  shall  be  called  Immanuel  (God-with-us)  ;  instead  of  mentioning  a 
term  of  j-ears,  he  says,  before  the  child  is  able  to  distinguish  good  from 
evil ;  instead  of  saying  that  until  that  time  the  land  shall  Ue  waste,  he 
represents  the  child  as  eating  curds  and  honey,  spontaneous  products, 
here  put  in  opposition  to  the  fi'uits  of  cultivation.  At  the  same  time, 
the  form  of  expression  is  descriptive.  Instead  of  saying  simply  that  the 
child  shall  experience  all  this,  he  represents  its  birth  and  infancy  as 
actually  passing  in  his  sight ;  he  sees  the  child  brought  forth  and  named 
Immanuel ;  he  sees  the  child  eating  curds  and  honey  till  a  certain  age. 
Tlierefore  (because  jou  have  refused  to  choose)  the  Lord  himself  will  give 
you  a  sign.  Behold!  the  virgin  jyregnant  and  bringing  forth  a  son,  and  she 
calls  his  name  Immanuel  (God-with-us) — curds  and  honey  shall  he  eat 
(because  the  land  lies  waste)  tmtil  he  shall  knoiu  (how)  to  reject  the  evil  and 
choose  the  good  (but  no  longer)  ;  for  before  the  child  ihall  knoio  {hoio)  to 
reject  the  evil  and  to  choose  the  good,  the  land,  of  whose  two  Icings  thou  art 
afraid,  [i.e.  Syria  and  Israel),  shall  be  forsaken,  i.e.  desolate),  which  of 
course  implies  the  previous  deliverance  of  Judah. — All  interpreters  appear 
to  be  agreed  that  these  three  verses  contain  a  threatening  of  destruction 
to  the  enemies  of  Judah,  if  not  a  direct  promise  of  deliverance,  and  that 
this  event  is  connected,  in  some  way,  with  the  birth  of  a  child,  as  the 
sign  or  pledge  of  its  pertain  occurrence.  But  what  child  is  meant,  or  who 
is  the  Immanuel  here  predicted  ?  The  various  answers  to  this  question 
may  be  all  reduced  to  three  fundamental  hypotheses,  each  of  which  ad- 
mits of  several  minor  variations. 
1^  I.  The  first  hypothesis  is  that  the  only  birth  and  infancy  referred  to  in 
these  verses  are  the  birth  and  infancj-  of  a  child  bora  (or  supposed  to  be 
born)  in  the  ordinarv'  course  of  nature,  and  in  the  days  of  Isaiah  himself. 
(  The  unessential  variations,  of  which  this  h^-pothesis  is  susceptible,  have 
(  reference  chiefly  to  the  question  what  particular  child  is  intended.  1.  The 
-  Jews  of  old  supposed  it  to  be  Hezekiah ;  but  this  was  exploded  by  Jerome's 
suggestion,  that  he  was  already  at  least  nine  years  old,  since  his  father 
reigned  but  sixteen  years,  and  he  succeeded  him  at  twenty-five  (2  Kings 
svi,  2,  xviii.  2).  2.  Kimchi  and  Abarbenel  suppose  Immanuel  to  be  a 
,  ^"Dger  SMI  of  Aha^,  by  a  second  marriage.  8.  Isenbiehl,  Bauer,  Cube, 
Steudel,  and  Ilitzig,  understand  by  "^PrVC,  a  woman  who  was  presejot,  and 
at  whom  the  Prophet  pointed.     4.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Eichhorn,  Paulus, 


Ver.  14.]  ISAIAH  VII.  167 

Honsler,  Ammon,  understand  the  Prophet  to  predict  not  a  real  but  an 
ideal  birth,  as  if  he  had  said,  should  one  now  a  virgin  conceive  and  bear  a 
son,  she  might  call  his  name  Immanuel,  &c.  5.  Aben  Ezra,  Jarchi,  Faber, 
PiUschke,  Gesenius,  Mam-er,  Hendewerk,  Kuobel,  suppose  him  to  be' 
sjieakiug  of  his  own  wife,  and  the  bu-th  of  his  own  son  ;  and  as  Shear- 
jashub  was  already  born,  Gesenius  assumes  a  second  marriage  of  the  Pro-  - 
phet,  and  supposes  two  events  to  be  predicted  ;  first,  the  deliverance  of 
Judah  at  thelnrth  of  the  child,  and  then  the  desolation  of  Syria  and  Israel 
before  he  should  be  able  to  distinguish  good  and  evil.  To  this  last  sup- 
position, it  is  justly  objected  by  Hengstenberg  that  it  assumes  too  great  an 
interval  between  the  deliverance  of  Judah  and  the  desolation  of  the  other 
countries,  as  well  as  between  the  former  and  the  resumption  of  agricultural 
employments.  It  is  besides  unnecessary,  as  the  interposition  denoted  by  the 
name  Immanuel  need  not  be  restricted  to  the  time  of  the  child's  birth,  and  as 
the  desolation  of  Syria  and  Israel  is  said  to  take  place  before,  but  not  imme- 
diatehj  before  the  child's  attaining  to  a  certain  age ;  to  which  it  may  be 
added  that  the  age  itself  is  left  somewhat  indefinite.  But  besides  these 
objections  to  Gesenius's  assumption  of  a  twofold  prophecy,  his  whole  hypo- 
thesis, with  all  the  others  which  have  been  enumerated,  except  perhaps  the 
fourth,  may  be  justly  charged  with  gratuitously  assuming  facts  of  which 
we  have  no  evidence,  and  which  are  not  necessary  to  the  interpretation  of 
the  passage  ;  such  as  the  second  marriage  of  Ahaz,  or  that  of  Isaiah, 
or  the  presence  of  a  pregnant  woman,  or  the  Prophet's  pointing  at  her. 
A  further  objection  to  all  the  variations  of  this  first  hj^)othesis  is,  that 
although  \h.ej  may  afibrd  a  sifjn,  in  one  of  the  senses  of  that  term,  to  wit,  ^ 
that  of  an  emblem  or  symbol,  they  do  not  afford  such  a  sign  as  the  con- 
_text  would  lead  us  to  expect.  Ahaz  had  been  offered  the  privilege  of 
choosing  any  sign  whatever,  in  heaven  or  on  earth.  Had  he  actually  . 
chosen  one,  it  would  no  doubt  have  been  something  out  of  the  ordinary 
course  of  nature,  as  in  the  case  of  Gideon  (Judges  vi.  37-40)  and  Hezekiah  . 
(Isa.  xxxviii.  7,  8).  On  his  refusal  to  choose,  a  sign  is  given  him  unasked, 
and  although  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  it  was  precisely  such  as  he 
would  have  selected — since  the  object  was  no  longer  simply  to  remove  his 
doubts,  but  to  verify  the  promise  and  to  mark  the  event  when  it  occurred 
as  something  which  had  been  predicted — yet  it  seems  veiT  improbajjlejhat 
after  such  an  ofi"er,  the  sign  bestowed  ^vould  be  merely  a.tbing  of  every  day 
occurrence,  or  at  most  the  application  of  a  symbolical  name.  This  pre- 
sumption is  strengthened  by  the  solemnity  with  which  the  Prophet  speaks 
of  the  predicted  birth,  not  as  a  usual  and  natural  event,  but  as  something 
which  excites  his  own  astonishment,  as  he  beholds  it  in  prophetic  vision. 
This  may  prove  nothing  by  itself,  but  is  significant  when  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  other  reasons.  The  same  thing  may  be  said  of  the  address 
to  Immanuel,  in  chap.  viii.  8,  and  the  allusion  to  the  name  in  ver.  11, 
which,  although  they  may  admit  of  explanation  in  consistency  with  this 
first  hj'pothesis,  agree  much  better  with  the  supposition  that  the  prophecy 
relates  to  something  more  than  a  natural  and  ordinary  birth.  A  still 
stronger  reason  for  the  same  conclusion  is  afi'orded  by  the  parallel  passage 
in  chap.  ix.  5,  6,  occurring  in  the  same  connected  series  of  prophecies. 
There,  as  here,  the  birth  of  a  child  is  given  as  a  pledge  of  safety  and  deli- 
verance, but  with  the  important  addition  of  a  full  description,  which,  as 
we  shall  see  below,  is  wholly  inapplicable  to  any  ordinary  human  child, 
however 'high  in  rank  or  full  of  promise.  If  led  by  these  remai'kable  coin- 
cidences to  examine  more  attentively  the  terms  of  the  prophecy  itself,  we 


168  ISAIAH  VII.  [Ver.  U. 

find  the  mother  of  the  promised  child  described,  not  as  a  tioman  or  as  any 
particular  ^yoman  mere!}',  but  as  i^9?VC  a  term  which  has  been  variously 
derived  from  D^V  to  conceal,  and  from      <;    to  grow  up,  but  which,  in  the 

six  places  where  it  occurs  elsewhere,  is 'twice  applied  to  young  unmarried 
females  certainly  (Gen.  xxiv.  43  ;  Exod.  ii.  8)  and  twice  most  probably 
(Ps.  Ixviii.  25  ;  Sol.  Song  i.  8),  while  in  the  two  remaining  cases  (Sol. 
Song  i.  8;  Prov.  xxx.  19)  this  api)lication  is  at  least  as  probable  as  any 
other.  It  would  therefore  naturally  suggest  the  idea  of  a  virgin,  or  at  least 
of  an  unmarried  woman.  It  is  said,  indeed,  that  if  this  had  been  intended, 
the  word  n^in?  would  have  been  emploj-ed  ;  but  even  that  word  is  not 
invariably  used  in  its  strict  sense  (see  Deut.  xxii.  19 ;  Joel  i.  8),  so  that 
there  would  still  have  been  room  for  the  same  cavils,  and  perhaps  for  the 
assertion  that  the  idea  of  a  virgin  could  not  be  expressed  except  by  a  peri- 
phrasis. It  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  a  virgin  or  unmarried  woman 
is  designated  here  as  distinctly  as  she  could  be  by  a  single  word.  But  why 
should  this  description  be  connected  with  a  fact  which  seems  to  render  it 
inapplicable,  that  of  parturition  ?  That  the  word  means  simply  a  youmj 
uomaii,  whether  married  or  unmarried,  a  virgin  or  a  mother,  is  a  subter- 
fuge invented  by  the  later  Greek  translators  who,  as  Justin  Mart}T  tells  us, 
read  vsaviz,  instead  of  the  old  version  rrdchvo:,  which  had  its  rise  before  the 
prophecy  became  a  subject  of  dispute  between  the  Jews  and  Christians. 
That  the  word  denotes  one  who  is  a  virgin  or  unmamed  )ww,  without  im- 
plying that  she  is  to  remain  so,  is  certainly  conceivable  ;  but,  as  we  said 
before,  its  use  in  this  connection,  especially  when  added  to  the  other  reasons 
!  previously  mentioned,  makes  it,  to  say  the  least,  extremeh'  probable  that 
the  event  foretold  is  something  more  than  a  birth  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  nature.  So  too,  the  name  Immamul,  although  it  might  be  used  to 
signify  God's  providential  presence  merely  (Ps.  xlvi.  8,  12,  Ixxxix.  25  ; 
Joshua  i.  5  ;  Jer.  i.  8  ;  Isa.  xliii.  2),  has  a  latitude  and  pregnancy  of 
meaning  which  can  scarcely  be  fortuitous,  and  which,  combined  with  all 
the  rest,  makes  the  conclusion  almost  unavoidable,  that  it  was  here  intended 
to  express  a  jH'nnnnl  as  well  as  a  providential  presence.  If  to  this  we  add 
the  early  promise  of  salvation  through  the  seed  of  the  wonum  (Gen.  iii.  15), 
rendered  more  definite  by  later  revelations,  and  that  remarkable  expression 
of  Isaiah's  contemporary  prophet  Micah  (ver.  2),  initil  the  time  that  she 
u-hich  travaihih  hath  brour/ht  folh,  immediately  following  the  promise  of 
a  ruler,  to  be  born  in  Bethlehem,  but  whose  fioi)irfs  forth  hare  been  of  old, 
froin  ererlastiiif) — the  balance  of  probabilities,  as  furnished  by  the  Old  Tes- 
tament exclusiveh',  preponderates  decidedly  in  favour  of  (he  supposition, 
that  Isaiah's  words  had  reference  to  a  miraculous  conception  and  nativity. 
When  we  read,  therefore,  in  the  gospel  of  ]\[atthew,  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
actually  born  of  a  virgin,  and  that  all  the  circumstances  of  his  birth  came 
to  pass  that  this  veiy  prophecy  might  be  fulfilled,  it  has  less  the  appearance  of 
an  unexpected  application,  than  of  a  conclusion  rendered  necessaiy,  by  a 
series  of  antecedent  facts  and  reasons, — the  last  link  in'  a  long  chain  of  intima- 
tions more  or  less  explicit.  The  same  considerations  seem  to  shew  that  the 
prophecy  is  not  merely  transferred  or  accommodated  to  another  subject  by 
the  evangelist,  which  is,  moreover,  clear  from  the  emphatic  form  of  the  cita- 
tion {roZro  (j}jjv  y'iyovvj  ha.  'x}.r,>C)jCfi  x-  r.  ?..),  making  it  impossible  to  prove 
the  existence  of  any  quotation,  in  the  proper  sense,  if  this  be  not  one,  and 
from  the  want  of  any  similarity  between  the  two  events,  vi/.,  a  natural  and 
miraculous  conception,  upon  which  a  mere  illustrative  accommodation  of  the 


Vee.  14.J  ISAIAH  VII.  169 

words  could  have  been  founded.  The  idea,  insidiously  suggested  by  J.  I). 
Michaehs,  that  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew  may  be  spurious,  is  so  far 
from  deriving  any  countenance  from  this  appUcation  of  the  prophecy,  that, 
on  the  contrary,  its  wonderful  agreement  witla  the  scattered  but  harmonious 
intimations  of  the  Old  Testament,  too  numerous  and  too  detached  to  be  for- 
tuitous, affords  a  strong  though  incidental  proof  that  these  very  chapters  are 
genuine  and  authentic.  The  rejection  of  Matthew's  authority  in  totn,  as  an 
interpreter  of  the  prediction,  is  not  only  inconsistent  with  the  proofs  of  his 
inspiration  drawn  from  other  quarters,  but  leaves  unexplained  the  remark- 
able coincidence  between  his  interpretation  and  the  original  form  of  expres- 
sion, the  context,  and  the  parallel  passages.  That  these  should  all  conspire 
to  recommend  an  ignorant  or  random  explanation  of  the  prophecy,  is  more 
incredible  than  that  the  explanation  should  be  true,  and  the  words  of  Isaiah 
a  prediction  of  something  more  than  the  birth  of  a  real  or  ideal  child  in  the 
ordinary  com-se  of  nature,  and  in  the  days  of  the  Prophet  himself.  The 
question,  however,  still  arises,  how  the  birth  of  Christ,  if  here  predicted,  is 
to  be  connected  with  the  promise  made  to  Ahaz,  as  a  sign  of  the  event,  or 
as  a  measure  of  the  time  of  its  fulfilment  ? 

II.  The  second  hypothesis  removes  this  difiiculty,  by  supposing  that  the  • 
prophecy  relates  to  two  distinct  births  and  two  different  children.     Of  this 
general  theory  there  are  two  important  modifications.    1.  The  first  supposes   " 
one  child  to  be  mentioned  in  ver.  14,  and  another  in  ver.  16.    As  to  ver.  15, 
some  connect  it  with  the  one  before  and  some  with  the  one  after  it.     Thus 
Junius  understands  ver.  14  to  refer  to  Chi'ist,  but  vers.  15,  16  to  Shear- 
jashub  ;  Usher  applies  vers.  14,  15  to  Christ,  and  ver.  16  to  Shearjashub ; 
Calvin,  vers.  14,  15  to  Christ,  but  ver.  16  to  a  child,  i.e.  any  child  inde-  ' 
finitel}'.     They  all  agree  that  the  prophecy  contains  two  promises.     First,   ■ 
that  Christ  should  be  born  of  a  virgin,  and  then  that  Judah  should  be  de-  - 
livered  before  Shearjashub  (or  before  any  child  born  within  a  certain  time) 
could  distinguish  good  from  evil.     To  such  of  these  interpretations  as  refer 
ver.  15  to  the  infancy  of  Christ,  it  may  be  objected  that  they  put  a  sense  • 
upon  that  verse  which  its  expressions  will  not  bear,  and  which  is  inconsis- 
tent with  the  use  of  the  same  terms  in  ver.  22.     It  will  be  seen  below  that  - 
the  eating  of  curds  and  honey  is  predicted  as  a  sign  of  general  desola-  - 
tion,  or  at  least  of  interrupted  tillage.     Another  objection  which  applies 
to  all  the  forms  of  this  interpretation  is   the  sudden  change  of  subject,.' 
in  the  fifteenth  or  sixteenth  verse,  from  Immanuel  to   Shearjashub,  or  to 
any  child  indefinitely.     Nothing  but   extreme   exegctical  necessity   could  I 
justify  the  reference  of  vers.  15,   16  to  auj'  person  not  referred  to  in  ver.  j 
14.     2.  This  difficulty  is  avoided  in  the  second  modification  of  the  general" 
hypothesis  that  the  passage,  as  a  whole,  refers  to  two  distinct  births  and 
to  diflerent  children,  bj'  assuming  that  both  are  mentioned  in  the  fourteenth 
verse   itself.      This  is  the  supposition   of  a    double  sense,    though  some  . 
refuse  to  recognise  it  by  that  name.     The  essence  of  the  theoiy  is  this,t. 
that  while  ver.  14,  in  its  obvious  and  primary  sense,  relates  to  the  birth' 
of  a  child  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  its  terms  are  so  selected  as*, 
to  be  descriptive,  in  a  highgr  sense,  of  the  miraculous  nativity  of  Christ.  » 
This  theory  is  mentioned  by  Jerome  as  the  opinion  of  a  certain  Judaizing 
Christian,  whom  he  does  not  name  (quidam  de  nostris  judaizaus),  and  by 
Calvin  as  a  compromise  between  the  orthodox  and  Jewish  expositions,  but  • 
it  has  since  had  many  eminent  and  able  advocates.     The  minor  variations 
of  this  general  hj-pothesis  have  reference  chiefly  to  the  particular  child  . 
int(  nded  by  the  prophecy  in  its  lower  sense,  whether  a  son  of  Isaiah  him- 


170  ISAIAH  VII.  [Ver.  14. 

self,  as  Grotias,  Cltiicus,  and  Barnes  suppose,  or  any  child  bora  within  a 
certain  time,  as  Lowth,  with  more  probability,  assumes.     The  adiLautage^ 

,  of  UTese  interpretations  is,  that  they  seem  to  account  for  the  remarkable 
expressions  which  the  prophet  uses,  as  if  to  intimate  a  deeper  meaning 
than  the  primary  and  obvious  one,  and  at  the  same  time  answer  the  con- 
ditions both  of  the  context  in  Isaiah  and  of  the  application  in  Matthew, 
presenting  a  sign  analogous  to  others  given  before  and  after  by  this  very  pro- 
phet (chap.  vii.  3,  viii.  2),  and  at  the  same  time  furnishing  believers  with 

.  a  striking  prophecy  of  the  Messiah.  The  objections  to  it  are  its  com- 
plexitY,  and  what  seems  to  be  the  arbitrary  nature  of  the  assumption.upoa 
which  it  rests.  It  seems  to  be  a  feeling  common  to  learned  and  unlearned 
readers,  that  although  a  double  sense  is_  not  impossible,  and  must  in 
certain  cases  be  assumed,  it  is  unreasonable  to  assume  it  when  _apy_pther 
explanation  is  admissible.  The  improbability  in  this  case  is  increased  by 
the  want  of  similarjty  between  the  two  events,  supposed  to  be  predicted 
in  the  very  same  words,  the  one  miraculous,  the  other  not  only  natural, 
but  common,  and  of  everyday  occun'cnce.  That  tw'o  such  occuiTences 
should  be  described  in  the  same  words,  simply  because  they  were  both 

•  shins  or  pledges  of  a  promise,  though  not  impossible,  can  only  be  made 
probable  by  strong  corroborating  proofs,  especially  if  any  simpler  mode  of 
exposition  be  at  all  admissible; :  -Another  _oljection,   w^hich  lies  equally 

,  against  this  hj^othesis  and  the  one  first  mentioned  is,  that  in  its  primary 

,  and  lower  sense  it  does  not  afford  such  a  sign  as  the  context  and  the  parallel 
passages  would  lead  us  to  expect,  unless  we  suppose  that  the  higher  secon- 
daiy  sense  was  fully  understood  at  the  time  of  the  prediction,  and  in  that 
case,  though  the  birth  of  the  Messiah  from  a  virgin  would  be  doubtless  a 
sufficient  sign,  it  would,  for  that  vciy  reason,  seem  to  make  the  lower  one 
superfluous.  Dathe's  courageous  supposition,  that  the  primary  reference 
is  to  a  miracidoKS  conception  iiud  birth  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  only  aggi'a- 
vates  the  difficulty  which  it  would  diminish,  though  it  certainly  escapes  the 
force  of  some  of  the  objections  to  the  supposition  of  a  double  sense,  to 
wit,  those  founded  on  the  inadequacy  of  the  sign  and  the  dissimilarity  of 
the  events.     None  of  these  reasons  seem,  however,  to  be  decisive  against 

ithe  supposition  of  a  double  sense,  as  commonly  understood,  unless  there 
be  some  other  way  in  which  its  complexity  and  arbitrary  character  may  be 
,  avoided,  and  at  the  same  time  the  connection  between  the  bu'th  of  the  Mes- 
(   siah  and  the  deliverance  of  Judah  satisfactorilj'  explained. 
'»      III.  The  third  general  hv'pothesis  proposes  to  effi)ct  this  by  applying  all 
three  verses  directly  and  exclusively  to  the  Messiah,  as  the  only  child  whose 
birth  is  there  predicted,  and  his  growth  made  the  measure  of  the  subsequent 
.  events.     The  minor  variations  of  this  general  hypothesis  relate  to  the  time 
when  these  events  were  to  occur,  and  to  the  sense  in  which  the  gi'owth  of  the 
Messiah  is  adopted  as  the  measure  of  them.     1.  The  simplest  form  in  which 
•  this  theory  has  been  applied,  is  that  exhiMted  by  J.  H.  IMichaclis  and  others, 
I  who  suppose  the  prediction  to  relate  to  the  real  time  of  Christ's  appearance, 
t  and  the  thing  foretold  to  be  the  desolation  which  should  take  place  before 
Uthe  Saviour  reached  a  certain  age.     To  this  it  is  an  obvious  objection  that 
it  makes  the  event  predicted  too_remote  to  answer  the  conditions  of  the  coii- 
text.  or  the  purpose  of  the  propfiecy  itself.     A  similar  olijection  has,  indeed, 

-  been  urged  by  the  Rabbins  and  btners,  to  a  prophecy  of  Christ's  birth  as  a 
.  sign  of  the  promise  made  to  Ahaz.     But  the  cases  are  entirely  dissimilar. 

-  The  promise  of  immediate  deliverance  might  be  confirmed  by  an  appeal  to 
an  event  long  posterior,  if  the  one  necessarily  imphed  the  other,  as  included 


Yee.  14.]  ISAIAH  VII.  Ill 

in  it,  or  as  a  necessaiy  previous  condition.     Thus  the  promise  that  Israel" 
should  worship  God  at  Sinai,  was  a  sign  to  Moses,  that  they  should  first  he 
delivered  from  Egj-pt  (Exod.  iii.  12),  and  the  promise  that  the  tillage  inter- 
rupted hy  Sennacherih's  invasion  should  be  resumed,  was  a  sign  to  Hezelciah, 
that  the  invasion  was  itself  to  cease  (Isa.  xxxvii,  30).     In  like  manner,  the 
assurance  that  Christ  was  to  be  born  in  Judah,  of  its  royal  family,  might  be' 
a  sign  to  Ahaz,  that  the  kingdom  should  not  perish  in  his  day ;  and  so  far 
was  the  remoteness  of  the  sign  in  this  case  from  making  it  absurd  or  inap- 
propriate, that  the  further  ofl'  it  was,  the  stronger  the  promise  of  continuance, 
joJudah,  which  it  guaranteed.     EspecfallyTs  this  the  case,  if  we  suppose  It 
to  have  been  a  famiHar  doctrine  of  the  ancient  Church,  that  the  Messiah  was  ' 
to  come,  and  that  for  his  sake,  Israel  existed  as  a  nation.     But,  according 
to  the  theory  now  in  question,  not  only  is  the  sign  remote,  but  also  the  thing  * 
signified  ;  not  only  the  pledge  of  the  event,  but  the  event  itself.     The  Pro- 
phet's contemporaries  might  have  been  encouraged  to  expect  deliverance 
from  present  danger  by  the  promise  of  Christ's  coming;  but  a  promise  of, 
deliverance  before  the  end  of  seven  hundred  years  could  afford  no  encour- 
agement at  all.     That  this  objection  to  the  theory  in  question  has  been  felt  - 
by  some  of  its  most  able  advocates,  may  be  inferred  from  several  facts.     One 
is,  that  J.  H.  Michaelis  is  obliged  to  insert  the  words  lourj_^&ince  (dudum  » 
deserta  erit),  and  yet  to  leave  the  promise  wholly  indefinite.     Another  is, 
that  Henderson  departs  from  the  ancient  and  almost  universal  explanation  ^ 
of  the  passage  as  a  promise,  and  converts  it  into  a  threatening,  not  only 
against  Israel,  but  against  Judah  ;  both  of  which  kingdoms  were  to  lose 
their  kings  before  the  twelfth  year  of  our  Saviour,  when  Archelaus  was  # 
banished  from  Judea.     A  third  is,  that  Cocceius,  though  one  of  the  most 
accurate  philologists  of  his  own  or  any  other  age,  and  only  too  decided  in 
his  exegetical  judgments,  hesitates  between  the  interpretation  now  in  ques- 
tion and  the  ungrammatical  and  arbitrary  reference  of  ver.  16  to  a  different 
child.     At  all  events,  it  may  be  safely  assumed,  that  the  jjoplication  of  these  j 
three  verses  to  the  ,time  of  Christ's  actual  appearance  has  no  claim  to  be 
received,  if  there  is  any  other  form  of  the  same  general  hypothesis,  by  which 
the  connection  of  the  promise  with  the  context  can  be  made  more  natural. 
2.  This  end  Vitriuga  has  attempted  to  secure,  by  supposing  the  language  to  . 
be  hypothetical,  or  that  the  Prophet,  while  he  views  the  birth  of  Christ  as  a 
remote  event,  makes  it  the  measure  of  the  events  at  hand— g.  d.  before  the 
Messiah,  if  he  ivere  horn  now,  could  know  how  to  distinguish  good  from  evil,  - 
&c.     The  only  objection  to  this  ingenious  explanation  is,  that  the  condi- 
tional expression  on  which  all  depends,  if  he  were  horn  now,  is  precisely  ■ 
that  which  is  omitted,  and  of  which  the  text  contains  no  intimation.     And 
that  the  Prophet,  without  such  intimation,  would  make  this  use  of  an  event 
which  he  distinctly  saw  to  be  remote,  though  not  incredible,  ought  surely 
not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity.     3.  Another  modification  of  the  hypo-  • 
thesis  which  refers  the  three  verses  all  to  the  Messiah,  is  that  proposed  by 
Rosenmiiller,  in  the  second  and  subsequent  editions  of  his  Scholia,  and  sub- 
stantially renewed  by  Ewald,  viz.,  that  Isaiah  really  expected  the  Messiah  i 
to  be  born  at  once,  and  therefore  naturally  made  the  progress  of  his  infancy  i 
the  measure  of  a  proximate  futurity.     Neither  of  these  writers  supposes  any  ' 
reference  to  Christ,  both  regarding  the  prediction  as  a  visionary  anticipation.  • 
But  He'ngstenberg  has  clearly  shewn  that  such  a  positive  belief  and  cxpec-  . 
tation,  on  Isaiah's  part,  is  not  only  inconsistent  with  other  prophecies,  but*^ 
with  the  sequel  of  this,  in  which  a  series  of  calamitous  events  is  described  j 
as  intervening  between  the  approaching  deliverance  and  the  nativity  of  the  ( 


172  ISAIAH  VII.  [Yer.  14. 

Messiah.  To  the  merely  negative  assumption  that  the  time  of  the  advent 
formed  no  part  of  this  i)articuhir  revelation,  he  thinks  there  is  not  the  same 
.objection.  4.  Accordingly,  his  own  interpretation  of  the  passage  is,  that 
the  birth  of  the  Messiah  being  presented  to  the  Pro^jhet  in  connection  with 
the  proximate  deliverance  of  which  it  was  the  sign  or  pledge,  without  regard 
to  chronological  relations,  and  seen  by  him  in  prophetic  ecstacy  as  actually 
present,  he  naturally  makes  the  one  the  measure  of  the  other.  As  if  he  had 
said,  I  see  the  virgin  bringing  forth  a  son,  and  calling  his  name  Immanuel  ; 
I  see  him  living  in  the  midst  of  desolation  till  a  certain  age  ;  but  before  that 
time  arrives,  I  see  the  land  of  our  invaders  l3'ing  desolate.     The  only  objec- 

•  tion  to  this  ingenfous  improvement  on  Vitringa's  ingenious  exposition,  is  that 
it  rests  upon  a  certain  theoiy  as  to  the  nature  of  prophetic  inspiration,  or  of 
the  mental  state  in  which  the  prophets  received  and  uttered  their  communi- 
cations, which,  however  probable,  is  not  at  present  generally  current  with 
believers  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  nor  perhaps  maintained 
by  Hengstenberg  himself. 

In  expounding  this  difficult  and  interesting  passage,  it  has  been  considered 
more  important  to  present  a  tolerably  full  view  of  the  ditl'orent  opinions, 
arranged  according  to  the  principles  on  which  they  rest,  than  to  assert  the 
exclusive  truth  of  any  one  interpretation  as  to  all  its  parts.  In  summing  up 
the  whole,  however,  it  may  be  confidently  stated,  that  the  first  hypothesis  is 

•  false  ;  that  the  first  modifications  of  the  second  and  third  are  untenable  ; 

!_and  that  the  choice  lies  between  the  supposition  of  a  double  sense  and  that 
of  a  reference  to  Christ  exclusively,  but  in  connection  with  the  promise  of 
'"immediate  deliverance  to  Ahaz.     The  two  particular  interpretations  which 
appear  to  be  most  plausible  and  least  beset  with  difficulties,  are  those  of 
"  Lowth  and  Vitringa,  with  which  last  Heugstcnberg's  is  essentially  identical. 
Either  the  Prophet,  while  he  foretells  the  birth  of  Christ,  foretells  that  of 

•  another  child,  during  whose  infancy  the  promised  deliverance  shall  be  ex- 
perienced ;  or  else  he  makes  the  infancy  of  Christ  himself,  whether  foreseen 
as  still  remote  or  not,  the  sign  and  measure  of  that  same  deliverance. 
While  some  diversity  of  jtxdgment  ought  to  be  expected  and  allowed,  in  re- 
lation to  this  secondary  question,  there  is  no  ground,  gi'ammatical,  historical, 
or  logical,  for  doubt  as  to  the  main  point,  that  the  Church  in  all  ages  has 

[  been  right  in  regarding  this  passage  as  a  signal  and  explicit  prediction  of 

I  the  miraculous  conception  and  nativity  of  Jesus  Christ. 

As  to  the  form  of  the  expression,  it  will  only  be  necessary  further  to  re- 

.  mark  that  ^"^y}  is  not  a  verb  or  participle  (Vitringa,  llosenmiiller),  but  a 
fenuiiine  a^ective,  signifs-ing  fregnant,  and  here  connected  with  an  active 
participle,  to  denote  that  the  object  is  described  as  present  to  the  Prophet's 
view.  Behold,  the  virijin,  pregnant  and  hringimj  forth  a  son,  and  she  calls  his 
name  Immanuel.  The  future  form  adopted  by  the  Septuagint  (s'^s/,  X7i-\'iTai, 
ri^irai)  is  retained  in  the  New  Testament,  because  the  words  are  there 
considered  simply  as  a  prophecy  ;  but  in  order  to  exhibit  the  full  force 
which  they  have  in  their  original  connection,  the  present  form  must 
be  restored.     The  form  of  the  sentence  is  evidently  copied  from  the  angel's 

,  address  to  Hagar  (Gen.  xvi.  11),  and  so  closely  that  the  verb  nxnjp  remains 
unchanged ;  not,  however,  as  the  second  person  femmine  (though  all  the 
other  Greek  versions  have  xa/.sffs/?,  and  Junius  likewise,  who  supplies  o  virgo 
to  remove  the  ambiguity),  but  as  the  third  person  feminine,  analogous  to 
rt'V  (Lev.  XXV.  21),  nnhp:  (Ps.  cxviii.  28),  nN3n  (Gen.  xxxiii.  11).  The 
foi-m  ns^l?  itself  occurs  (Deut.  xxxi.  29  ;  Jer.  xliv.  23),  but  in  another  sense 
(See  Nordheimer,  §  422).     Calvin,  with  a  strange  lapse  of  memory,  alleges 


Ver.  15.]  ISAIAH  VII.  173 

that  in  Scripture  mother!?  never  name  their  children,  and  that  a  departure 
from  the  constant  usage  here  is  a  prophetic  intimation  that  the  child  would 
have  no  human  father.  The  error  of  fact  is  easily  corrected  hy  referring 
to  the  exercise  of  this  prerogative  hy  Eve,  Leah,  Rachel,  Hannah,  and- 
others  (Gen.  iv.  1-25  ;  xix.  37  ;  xxis'.  32-35 ;  xxx.  6-24  ;  1  Sam.  i.  20  ; 
1  Chron.  iv.  9  ;  vii.  16).  That  the  same  act  is  frequently  ascribed  to  the 
father,  needs  of  course  no  proof.  In  the  case  before  us,  it  is  so  far  from 
being  an  important  question,  who  was  to  impose  the  name,  that  it  matters 
very  little  whether  it  was  ever  imposed  at  all ;  or  rather,  it  is  certain  that 
the  name  is  merely  descriptive  or  symbolical,  and  that  its  actual  use  in  real- 
life  was  no  more  necessary  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy,  than  that  the 
Messiah  should  be  commonly  known  hy  the  titles  of  Wonderful,  Counsellor, 
the  Prince  of  Peace  (Isa.  ix.  6),  or  the  Lord  our  Righteousness  (Jer.  xxiii.  6). 
Hence  in  Mat.  i.  23,  the  singular  ri5<"l|^  is  changed  into  the  plural  -/.aXhovsi, 
they  shall  call,  i.  e.  they  indefinitely,  as  in  our  familiar  phrase  thei/  say, 
corresponding  to  the  French  on  dit  and  the  Geman  man  sagt,  which  last  con- 
struction is  adopted  by  Augusti  in  his  version  of  this  sentence  (man  wird 
nennen  seiuen  Namen).  With  equal  adherence  to  the  spirit,  and  equal  de- 
parture from  the  letter  of  the  prophecy,  the  Peshito  and  Vulgate  give  the 
verb  a  passive  form,  his  name  shall  be  called.  As  to  the  meaning  of  the 
name  itself,  its  higher  sense  is  evident  from  Matthew's  application,  not- 
withstanding Hitzig's  paradoxical  denial,  and  its  lower  sense  from  the  usage 
of  analogous  expressions  in  Ps.  xhd.  8,  12,  Ixxxix.  25  ;  Josh.  i.  5,  Jer. 
i.  8,  Isa.  xliii.  2. 

15.  This  verse  and  the  next  have  already  been  translated  in  connection 
with  the  fourteenth,  npou  which  connection  their  interpretation  must  de- 
pend. It  will  here  be  necessary  only  to  explain  one  or  two  poiiits  more 
distinctly.  Butter  (or  curds)  and  honey  shall  he  eat,  until  he  knows  [hoio) 
to  reject  the  evil  and  to  choose  the  good.  The  simple  sense  of  the  prediction 
is  that  the  desolation  of  Judah,  caused  by  the  invasion  of  Rezin  and  Pekah, 
should  be  only  temporary.  This  idea  is  symbolically  expressed  by  making 
the  new-born  child  subsist  during  his  infancy  on  curds  and  honey,  instead 
of  the  ordinary  food  of  an  agricultural  population.  This  is  clearh'  the 
meaning  of  the  same  expression  in  ver.  22,  as  we  shall  see  below  ;  it  cannot 
therefore  here  denote  the  real  humanity  of  the  person  mentioned  (Calvin, 
Vitringa,  Henderson,  &c.),  which  is  besides  sufficiently  implied  in  his  being 
boi'n  of  a  human  mother,  and  could  not  be  asserted  here  without  interrupt- 
ing the  connection  between  the  fourteenth  and  sixteenth  verses.  It  cannot 
denote  his  poverty  or  low  condition  (Calovius),  or  that  of  the  family  of 
David  (Alting),  because  no  such  idea  is  suggested  by  the  words.  It  cannot, 
on  the  other  hand,  denote  abundance  or  prosperity  in  general  (Grotius, 
Cocceius,  Junius,  &c.),  because  such  a  diet  is  no  proof  of  that  condition, 
and  because,  according  to  ver.  22,  the  words  are  descriptive  only  of  such 
abundance  as  arises  from  a  sparse  population  and  neglected  tillage.  That 
this  desolation  should  be  temporary,  is  expressed  by  representing  it  as  co- 
extensive with  the  early  childhood  of  the  person  mentioned.  iW'I'?  is  ex- 
plained by  Jarchi,  Lowth,  Hitzig,  Henderson,  and  Ewald,  to  mean  when  he 
knovs  ;  by  most  other  writers,  till  or  before  he  knows  (LXX.  rr^lv  ri  yvuvai). 
The  Vulgate,  Luther,  Junius,  and  Clericus  refer  it,  not  to  time  at  all,  but. 
to  the  design  or  effect  of  his  eating  curds  and  honey,  that  he  may  know.  It 
is  clear,  however,  from  the  next  verse,  that  this  one  must  contain  a  speci- 
fication of  time,  however  vague.  The  difference  between  the  versions  when 
and  till,  and  also  in  relation  to  the  age  described — which  J.  D.  Michaelis 


174  ISAIAn  VII.  [Yer.  16. 

.  pills  as  higli  as  twenty-one,  Ewald  from  ten  to  twenty,  Henderson  at  twelve, 
but  Kiniclii  and  most  others  at  about  three  years — is  not  so  important  as 
mi<^ht  at  first  sight  seem,  because  the  description  was  probably  intended  to  be 
somewhat  indefinite.     The  essential  idea  is  that  the  desolation  should  not 

■  last  until  a  child  then  born  could  reach  maturity,  and  probably  not  longer 
than  his  first  few  years.     Clericus  supposes  r/ood  and  evil  to  mean  pleasant 

.  and  unpleasant  food,  as  in  H\  Sam.  xix.  35  ;  but  the  same  words  elsewhere 
constantly  relate  to  moral  distinctions  and  the  power  to  perceive  them  (Gen. 
iii.  5  ;  Deut.  i.  89  ;  1  Kings  iii.  9  ;  Jonah  iv.  2).  Nothing  short  of  the 
strongest  exegetical  necessity  could  justify  the  reference  of  this  verse  to 
Shearjashub  (Junius,  Usher),  or  to  any  other  subject  than  the  one  referred 
to  in  the  verse  preceding,  namely,  Immanuel,  the  child  whose  birth  the 
Prophet  there  describes  as  just  at  hand,  and  whose  infancy  he  here  describes 
as  passed  in  the  midst  of  sun-ounding  desolation.  To  the  explanation  of 
this  verse  as  having  reference  to  Isaiah's  own  son  or  a  son  of  Ahaz  on  the 
one  hand,  or  to  the  time  of  our  Saviour's  actual  appearance  on  the  other, 
sullicient  objections  have  already  been  adduced  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
fourteenth  verse. 

16.  The  desolation  shall  be  temporary — -foi'  before  the  child  shall  know 
(how)  to  reject  the  evil  and  to  choose  the  good,  the  land,  of  lohose  two  Jcinys 
thou  art  a/raid  (or  by  whose  tiuo  kings  thou  art  distressed)  shall  be  forsaken, 

■  i.  e.  left  by  its  inhabitants  and  given  up  to  desolation,  in  which  sense  the 
same  verb  is  used  elsewhere  by  Isaiah  (chap.  xvii.  2,  xxvii.  10,  Ixii.  12. 
Comp.  \i.  12).     Instead  of  taking  3T^Jn  thus  absolutely,  most  of  the  older 

.  writers,  and  a  few  of  later  date,  connect  it  with  "".^^P,  and  Y\^  with  "l^^'S. 
The  land  uhich  thou  abhorrest  {or  for  lohich   thou  fearest)  shall  be  forsaken 

^by  both  its  kings — i.  e.  Judah  shall  be  forsaken  by  Rezin  and  Pekah,  whom 
Steudel  supposes  to  bo  called  its  kings  de  facto — or  Syria  and  Israel  shall 

.  be  deprived  of  Rezin  and  Pfkah — or  Canaan  (including  Israel  and  Judah) 
shall  lose  both  its  kings.  This  last  is  the  interpretation  given  by  Hender- 
son, who  also  reads  the  land  which  thou  destroyest.     Clericus  takes  3?J''f? 

.  absolutely,  in  the  sense  of  being  desolate,  but  translates  the  rest,  lohich 
thou  abhorrest  on  account  of  its  two  kings.  To  some  of  these  constructions 
•  it  may  be  objected  that  they  make  the  land  and  not  the  kings  the  object  of 

.  abhorrence,  and  to  all,  that  they  construe  X\>  directly  with  "i'^!'>?  which  is  con- 
traiy  to  usage,  and  disjoin  it  from  ^J?P,  by  w'hich  it  is  followed  in  at  least 
two  other  places  (Ex.  iii.  12,  Num.  xxii.  3)  ;  to  which  may  be  added  that 
according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom,  this  construction  is  the  only  one  that  could  be 
used  to  signify  before  (or  on  account  of)  irhose  two  kings  thou  art  in  terror. 
This  construction,  which  is  given  by  Castalio  and  De  Dieu,  is  adopted  by 
Cocceius,  Yitriuga,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Rosenmidler,   Gesenius,  Ewald,  and 

.  most  other  modern  writers,  who  are  also  agi'eed  that  the  land  here  meant 
is  S3Tia  and  Israel,  spoken  of  as  one  because  confederate  against  Judah. 

.The  wasting  of  these  kingdoms  and  the  deportation  of  their  people  by 
Tiglath-pileser  (2  Kings  xv.  29,  xvi.  9),  is  here  predicted,  which  of  course 
implies  the  previous  deliverance  of  Judah  and  the  brief  duration  of  its  own 
calamity,  so  that  this  verse  assigns  a  reason  for  the  representation  in  the 
.one  preceding.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  imposing  upon  *3  at  the 
beginning  of  the  verse,  the  sense  of  nay  (Piscator),  indeed  [Calxm),  although 
(Alting),  or  but  (Umbreit),  or  any  other  than  its  usual  and  proper  one  of 
for,  because.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  regard  the  fifteenth  verse  as  a  paren- 
thesis, with  Cocceius  and  Rosenmiiller ;  much  less  to  reject  it  as  a  gloss, 
with  Hitzig,  and  as  breaking  the  connection  betsveen  the  name  Immanuel 


Vee.  17.]  ISAIAH  VII.  175 

in  ver,  14,  and  the  explanation  of  it  in  ver.  16.  The  true  connection  of 
the  verses  has  been  well  explained  by  Manrer  and  Knobel  to  bo  this,  that 
Judah  shall  lie  waste  for  a  short  time,  and  only  for  a  short  time, /or  before 
that  short  time  is  expired,  its  invaders  shall  themselves  be  invaded  and 
destroyed.  This  view  of  the  connection  is  sufficient  to  evince,  that  the 
reference  of  this  verse  to  Shearjashub  (Lowth)  or  to  any  child  indefinitely 
(Calvin),  is  as  unnecessary  as  it  is  ungrammatical.  A  child  is  born — he 
learns  to  distinguish  good  and  evil — but  before  the  child  is  able  to  distin- 
guish good  and  evil,  something  happens.  If  these  three  clauses,  thus 
succeeding  one  another,  do  not  speak  of  the  same  child,  it  is  impossible  for 
language  to  be  so  employed  as  to  identify  the  subject  without  actually  saj'ing 
that  it  is  the  same. 

17.  Again  addressing  Ahaz,  he  assures  him  that  although  he  shall  escape 
the  present  danger,  God  will  inflict  worse  evils  on  himself  and  his  succes- 
sors, by  means  of  those  very  allies  whose  assistance  he  is  now  seeking. 
Jehovah  ivill  bring  upon  thee — not  merely  as  an  individual,  but  as  a  king — 
— and  on  thy  people — and  on  thy  father  s  house — or  family — the  royal  line 
of  Judah — days  ivhich  have  not  come  since  the  departure  of  Ephraim  from 
Judah,  to  loit,  the  king  of  Assyria.     It  is  possible  to  construe  the  sentence  ■ 
so  as  to  make  it  refer  to   the  retreat  of  the   invaders — Jehovah  will  bring 
upon  tliee  days  ivhich  have  not  come  (never  come  before),  from  the  day  that 
Ephraim  departs  from  Judah,  i.  e.  as  soon  as  this  invasion  ceases,  worse  . 
times  shall  begin.     This  construction,  which  is  permitted,  if  not  favoured, 
by  the  Masoretic  accents,  has  the  advantage  of  giving  to  ^VP  its  strict  sense, . 
as  imph'ing  the  removal  of  a  burden  or  infliction  (see  Exod.  x.  28,  and 
Gesenius    s.  v.)  rather   than  a  mere  revolt    or  schism,  and  also  that  of 
making  the  expression  stronger  (days  which  have  not  come  at  all,  or  never 
come),  and   at  the  same  time  less  indefinite  b}'-  specifying  when  the  days 
were  to  begin.     But  as  the  absolute  use  of  the  phrase  tvhich  have  not  come  . 
is  rather  harsh  and  unusual,  and  as  the  compound  forms  D"I*P?  and  ''P''P?  • 
are  elsewhere  used   only  in  relation  to  the  past  (Judges  xix.  30 ;  2  Sam. 
vii.  6  ;  2  Ivings  xix.  25  ;  Mai.  iii.   7),  although  the  simple  forms  QVp  and 
"•ip^P  sometimes  denote  the  future   (Exod.  sii.  15  ;  Lev.  xxii.  27  ;  Ezek. 
xxxviii.  8),  it  is  safer  to  adhere  to  the  unanimous  decision  of  all  versions 
and  interpreters,  so  far  as  I  can  trace  it,  and  understand  the  verse  as 
declaring  the  days  threatened  to  be  worse  than  any  which  had  come  upon 
Judah  since  the  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes,  here  called  Ephraim,  from  the  . 
largest  and  most  powerful  tribe,  that  to  which  Jeroboam  belonged,  and 
within   which  the  chief  towns  of  the  kingdom  were  situated.      This  de- 
claration  seems  at    first    sight    inconsistent  with  the  fact,  demonstrable, 
from   sacred  history,   that  the  injuries   sustained  by  Judah,   during  the 
interval  here  specified,  from  other  foreign  powers,  as  for  example  from  the 
Eg}-ptians  in  the  reign  of  Rehoboam  (2  Chron.  xii.  2-9),  from  the  Philis- 
tines and  Arabians  in  the  reign  of  Jehoram  (2  Chron.  xxi.  16,  17),  from" 
the  Syrians  in  the  reign  of  Joash  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  23,  24),  not  to  mention 
the  less  successful  attacks  of  the  Ethiopians  in  the  reign  of  Asa  (2  Chron. 
xiv.  8-15,  and  of  Moab  and  Ammon  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chron. 
XX.  1—30),  or  the  frequent  incursions  of  the  ten  tribes,  must  have  gi'eatly 
overbalanced  the  invasion  of  Sennacherib,  by  far  the  most  alarming  visita- 
tion of  Judah  by  the  armies  of  Assyria.     This  apparent  discrepancy  is  not 
to  be  explained  by  regarding  the  prophecy  before  us,  with  Gesenius,  as  a 
mere  threat  (blosses  Drohwort),  nor  by  alleging  that  the  days  here  threat- 
ened are  not  described  as  worse  than  any  former  days,  but  only  as  different 


17G  ISAIAH  VII.  [Ver.  17. 

from  them.  Even  granting  that  the  prophec}'  implies  not  merely  change  of 
condition,  but  a  change  for  the  worse,  it  may  bo  justified  in  either  of  two 
ways.  According  to  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Henderson,  and  others,  the  Jcin;/  of 
'Assyria  may  here  include  the  kings  of  IJabylon,  to  whom  the  title  is  applied  in 
2  Kings  xxiii.  29,  if  not  in  Neh.  ix.  32,  as  it  is  to  the  kings  of  Persia  in  Ezra 
vi.  22,  considered  as  successors  to  the  Assyrian  power,  in  accordance  with 
which  usage,  Herodotus  calls  IJabylon  a  city  of  Assyria.  ]5ut  even  this  sup- 
.  position,  although  highh-  probable,  is  not  here  necessary.  Let  it  be  observed 
that  the  days  here  threatened  were  to  bo  worse,  not  simply  wuth  respect  to 
individual  suffering  or  temporary  difficulties  of  the  state  itself,  but  to  tho 
loss  of  its  independence,  its  transition  to  a  servile  state,  from  which  it  was 
never  permanently  freed,  the  domination  of  Assyria  being  soon  succeeded 
by  that  of  Egypt,  and  this  by  that  of  Babylon,  Persia,  S}Tia,  and  Rome, 
the  last  ending  only  in  the  downfall  of  the  state,  and  that  general  disper- 
sion of  the  people  which  continues  to  this  day.  The  revolt  of  Hezekiah 
and  even  longer  intervals  of"  liberty  in  later  times,  are  mere  interruptions 
of  the  customary  and  prevailing  bondage.  Of  this  critical  change  it  surely 
might  be  said,  even  though  it  were  to  cost  not  a  single  drop  of  blood,  nor 
the  personal  freedom  of  a  siugle  captive,  that  the  Lord  was  about  to  bring 
upon  Judah  days  which  had  not  been  witnessed  from  the  time  of  Ephraim's 
apostasy,  or  according  to  the  other  construction  of  the  text,  at  any  time 
■  whatever ;  since  none  of  the  evils  suflered,  from  Solomon  to  Ahaz,  had 
destroyed  the  independence  of  Judah,  not  even  the  Egyptian  domination  in 
the  reign  of  Rehoboam,  which  only  lasted  long  enough  to  teach  the  Jews 
the  difi'erence  between  God's  service  and  the  service  of  the  liingdoms  of  the 
countries  (2  Chron.  xii.  8).  This  view  of  the  matter  is  abundantly  suffi- 
cient to  reconcile  the  prophecy  with  history,  whether  Assyria  be  understood 
to  mean  the  kingdom  properly  so  called,  or  to  include  the  empires  which 
succeeded  it ;  and  whether  the  threatening  be  referred  exclusively  to  Ahaz 
and  his  times,  as  Gesenius  and  Rosenmiiller  say  it  must  be,  or  to  him  and 
his  successors  jointl}',  which  appears  to  be  the  true  sense  of  thy  jjcople  and 
thy  /(dher's  house  as  distinguished  from  himself  aud  his  own  house  ;  but 
even  on  the  other  supposition,  as  the  change  of  times,  ^.  e.  the  transition 
from  an  independent  to  a  servile  state,  took  place  before  the  death  of  Ahaz, 
the  expressions  used  are  perfectly  consistent  with  the  facts.  It  is  implied, 
of  course,  in  this  interpretation,  that  Sennacherib's  invasion  was  not  the 
heginnivg  of  the  days  here  threatened,  which  is  rather  to  be  sought  in  the 
alliance  between  Ahaz  aud  Tiglath-pileser,  tvho  came  %into  him  and  distressed 
him  and  strengthened  him  not  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  19,  20),  but  exacted  repeated 
contribution  from  liim  as  a  vassal  ;  which  degrading  and  oppressive  inter- 
course continued  till  his  death,  as  appears  from  the  statement  (2  Kings 
xviii.  7),  that  Hezekitdi  rehelled  against  (he  king  of  Assyria,  and  served  him 
not,  clearly  implying  that  he  did  at  first,  as  he  offered  to  do  afterwards,  on 
Sennacherib's  approach,  with  confession  of  his  fault,  renewal  of  his  tribute, 
and  a  repetition  of  his  father's  sacrilege  (2  Kings  xviii.  13-10).  That  during 
•the  whole  term  of  this  foreign  ascendancy,  Judah  was  infested  by  Assyrian 
intruders,  and  by  frequent  visitations  for  the  purpose  of  extorting  their  un- 
willing tribute,  till  at  last  the  revolt  of  Hezekiah,  no  longer  able  to  endure 
the  burden,  led  to  a  formal  occupation  of  the  country',  is  not  only  pro- 
bable in  itself,  but  seems  to  bo  implied  in  the  subsequent  context  (verses 
18-20).  The  abrupt  commencement  of  this  verse,  without  a  connecting 
particle,  led  Alting  to  regard  it  as  the  apodosis  of  the  sentence  beginning 
with  ver.  IG — "  before  the  child  shall  know,  &c.,  aud  before  the  laud  shall 


Ver.  18.]  ISAIAH  VII.  177 

be  forsaken,  Jehovah  will  bring  upon  thee,"  &c.  But  besides  the  unusual, 
length  and  involution  of  the  sentence,  and  the  arbitrary  repetition  of  before 
with  and,  it  cannot  be  explained,  on  this  h}q^)othesis,  to  what  desolation 
ver.  16  alludes,  as  the  overthrow  of  Israel  preceded  the  invasion  of  Judah 
by  Assyria.  The  abrupt  commencement  of  the  sentence  is  regarded  by 
Maiu-er  as  a  proof  that  the  remainder  of  the  chapter  is  of  later  date  ;  by 
Hitzig  as  marking  the  commencement  of  the  prophecy  itself,  what  precedes  • 
being  introductory  to  it.  Vitringa  supposes  that  the  Prophet  paused,  as 
if  unwilling  to  proceed  ;  Houbigant,  as  usual,  amends  the  text  by  inserting 
vav;  while  Lowiih  and  others  follow  the  Septuagint  by  supplying  but. 
According  to  Hendewerk,  however,  the  adversative  pai-ticle  is  out  of  place, 
as  he  denies  that  what  now  follows  is  a  threatening  appended  to  a  previous 
promise,  and  regards  it  as  an  amplification  of  the  threatening  in  ver.  15  ; 
but  that  relates  to  the  Syrian  invasion,  this  to  the  Assyrian  domination. 
Alting's  translation  of  ^vV  hy  against  thee,  though  it  does  not  change  the 
general  sense,  destroys  its  figurative  dress,  in  which  there  is  an  obvious 
allusion  to  the  bringing  of  water  or  the  like  upon  a  person,  so  as  to  destroy 
him.  Compare  Joshua  xxiii.  15  and  xxiv.  7. — The  last  words  of  this  verse 
(IIK'S  1??3  riN)  have  been  rejected  as  a  gloss  by  Houbigant,  Seeker,  Lowth, 
Eiehhorn,  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  Hendewerk,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel, 
on  the  ground  that  they  contain  an  inelegant  anticipation  of  what  follows,  ■ 
and  an  explanation  of  what  goes  before,  at  once  superfluous  and  incorrect, . 
since  Egj'pt  as  well  as  Assyria  is  mentioned  afterwards.  That  Assyria 
might  be  naturally  named  alone,  as  first  in  time  and  in  importance,  is  ad-  , 
mitted  by  Eiehhorn,  who  rejects  the  clause  on  other  grounds  ;  and  Maurer, 
who  does  the  same,  speaks  with  contempt  of  the  objection  founded  on  the 
dai/s  being  explained  to  mean  the  ki7ig  (id  nihil  est).  As  for  the  rhetorical  , 
objection  that  the  words  are  too  prosaic,  it  is  founded  on  the  modern  notion 
that  the  prophets  were  mei'e  poets.  The  objections  to  the  explanation 
which  the  clause  contains,  as  superfluous  and  incorrect,  may  cancel  one 
another,  as  both  cannot  well  be  true.  Gesenius  thinks  the  supposition  of 
a  gloss  the  more  probable  because  he  has  detected  several  others  in  this 
prophecy ;  while  Ewald,  on  the  other  hand,  retains  the  words  as  genuine, 
because  they  recur  below  in  ver.  20  and  in  chap.  viii.  7.  The  external 
evidence  is  all  in  favour  of  the  clause.  There  is  no  need  of  making  riN  a 
preposition  meaning  by,  though,  or  from,  as  Jerome,  Luther,  Grotius,  and 
Clericus  do  ;  nor  is  it  necessary  to  regard  the  words  as  in  apposition  to  , 
2''P^,  since  they  are  rather  a  second  object  to  the  verb  J<''?J,  which  may  be 
considered  as  repeated  before  riN,  as  Hengstenberg  suggests — he  shall  bring 
upon  thee  days,  &c.  (he  shall  bring  upon  thee)  the  king  of  Assyria. 

18.  The  evil  times  just  threatened  are  here  more  explicitly  described  as 
arising  from  the  presence  and  oppression  of  foreigners,  especially  Assyrians 
and  Eg;\'ptians,  whose  number  and  vexatious  impositions  are  expressed  by 
comparing  them  to  swarms  of  noxious  and  annoying  insects,  pouring  into 
the  country  by  divine  command.  And.  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass)  in  that 
day  (in  the  days  just  threatened)  that  Jehovah  will  hiss  (or  whistle)  to  (or 
for)  the  Jig  which  (is)  in  the  end  (or  edge)  of  the  rivers  of  Egypt,  and  to  (or 
for)  the  bee  which  is  in  Assyria.  The  fly  is  peculiarly  appropriate  to 
Eg3'pt,  where  the  marshy  grounds  produce  it  in  abundance,  and  there  ma}'' 
be  a  reference,  as  Barnes  supposes,  to  the  plague  of  flies  in  Exodus. 
Knobel  and  others  think  there  may  be  also  an  allusion  to  the  abounding  of 
bees  in  Assyria ;  but  the  Prophet  probably  intended  only  to  combine  two 

VOL.  I.  M 


178  ISAIAH  VII .  [Ykr.  19,  20. 

familiar  and  annoying  kinds  of  insects,  and  not  to  describe  the  distinctive 

•  qualities  of  the  two  nations,  the  fierceness  and  boldness  of  the  Assyrians, 
the  filth  (Basil),  cowardice  (Jerome),  or  buzzing  speech  (Cp'il),  of  the 
Egyptians.  The  end  of  the  streams  of  Egypt  is  referred  by  some  to  the 
adjacent  countries  (Junius,  Piscator)  ;  but  it  evidently  means  something 
belonging  to  Egi^'pt  itself,  viz.  the  arms  of  the  Delta  (Vitringa,  Clericus, 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  Rosenmiiller,  Hendewerk,  Henderson),  or  the  remotest 
streams  (Gesenius,  Maurer,  Ewald),  implying  that  the  flies  should  come 
from  the  very  extremities,  or  from  the  whole  land  (Barnes).  By  making 
^"^P  denote  the  lateral  extremity  or  edge,  and  rendering  it  brink  or  border^ 
as  the  common  version  does  in  Joshua  iii.  8,  Exod.  xvi.  35,  an  equally 
good  sense  is  obtained,  viz.  that  the  flies  shall  come  from  the  banks  of  the 
streams,  where  they  are  most  abundant. — The  hiss  or  whistle,  denoting 
God's  control  over  these  enemies  of  Judah,  has  the  same  sense  as  in  chap. 

■  V.  26.  Assp'ia  and  Egypt  are  not  here  named  indefinitely  (Hendewerk), 
but  as  the  two  great  rival  powers  who  disturbed  the  peace  of  Western  Asia, 
and  to  whom  the  land  of  Israel  was  both  a  place  and  subject  of  contention. 

.  The  bee  cannot  of  itself  denote  an  army  (Barnes),  nor  is  the  reference  ex- 
clusively to  actual  invasion,  but  to  the  annoying  and  oppressive  occupation 

"  of  the  country  by  civil  and  military  agents  of  these  foreign  powers.  It 
was  not  merely  attacked  but  infested,  by  the  flies  and  bees  of  Egypt  and 
AssjTia.  FIi/  is  understood  as  a  generic  term  including  gnats,  mosquitoes, 
&c.,  by  Henderson,  and  bee  as  including  wasps  and  hornets  by  Hitzig  and 
Umbreit. 

19.  Carrj'ing  out  the  figures  of  the  preceding  verse,  the  Proi)het,  instead 
of  simply  saying  that  the  land  shall  be  infested  by  foreigners,  represents  it 
as  completely  filled  with  bees  and  flies,  who  are  described  as  settling  upon 
all  the  places  commonly  fi-equented  by  such  insects.  And  they  come  and 
rest  (or  settle)  all  of  them  in  the  desolate  (or  precipitous)  valleys,  and  in 
the  clefts  of  rocks,  and  in  all  thorn-hedges,  and  in  all  pastures.     According 

•  to  Clericus,  the  places  mentioned  are  those  suited  for  the  encampment  of 
troops ;  but  this  supposes  a  difierent  meaning  of  the  words  translated 
desolate  valleys  and  thorn-hedijcs.  The  exclusive  reference  to  invading 
armies  is  assumed  by  other  writers  also  ;  but  although  this  may  have  been 
the  prominent  idea,  the  words  seem  naturally  to  express  the  general  notion 

.of  a  country  overrun,  infested,  tilled  with  foreigners  and  enemies,  not  only 
by  military  occupation  but  in  other  ways.  The  opinion  of  I^imchi  and 
Forerius,  that  the  sites  of  towns  are  here  described,  overlooks  the  beautiful 
allusion  to  the  habits  of  the  insects  mentioned.  The  same  objection  lies 
in  part  against  the  supposition  of  an  antithesis  between  deserted  and  fre- 
quented places  (Cocceius),  or  between  worthless  and  valuable  products, 
"  thorns  and  shrubbery  of  pleasure  "  (Ijarnes),  which  rests  moreover  upon 
etymologies  now  commonly  abandoned.  Grolius  suggests  that  these  four 
.terms  have  reference  to  the  two  kinds  of  insects  alternately,  the  first  and 
third  denoting  customary  haunts  of  flies,  the  second  and  fourth  of  bees. 
The  version  above  given  is  the  one  adopted  by  the  latest  writers  (Gesenius, 
Hitzig,  Ewald,  Hendewerk,  Henderson,  Umbreit,  Knobel).  For  a  great 
variety  of  older  explanations  see  Rosenmiiller  on  the  passage  and  Geseuius's 
Thesaurus  s.  v. 

20.  Hud  the  Prophet,  as  Hendewerk  suggests,  represented  the  invaders 
as  locusts,  he  would  probably  have  gone  on  to  describe  them  as  devouring 
the  land  ;  but  having  chosen  bees  and  Hies  as  the  emllem,  he  proceeds  to 
express  the  idea  of  their  spoliations  by  a  difierent  figure,  that  of  a  body 


I 


Yer.  20.]  ISAIAH  VII.  179 

closely  shorn  or  sharen  by  a  razor  under  the  control  of  God  and  in  his  ser- 
vice.    In  that  day  (the  same  day  mentioned  in  ver.  19)  iciU  the  Lord  shave, 
with  a  razor  hired  in  the  jnvts  heijond  the  river  (Euphrates),  (that  is  to  say) 
ivith  the  Iciny  of  Assyria,  the  head  and  the  hair  of  the  feet  (/.  e.  of  both  ex- 
tremities, or  of  the  whole  body),  and  also  the  heard  will  it  (the  razor)  take 
aioay.     The  words  ll^'f^  'p'OI  are  rejected  by  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Umbreit,  . 
Knobel,  for  the  same  reason,  or  rather  with  as  little  reason,  as  in  ver.  17. 
They  are  retained  by  Hendewerk  and  Ewald.     Aben  Ezra  and  Abarbenel 
follow  the  Targum  and  Peshito  in  making  the  king  of  Assyria  the  subject  of - 
the  operation  here  described,  and  suppose  the  destroying  angel  to  be  called 
a  hired  razoi',  i.e.  one  of  the  best  temper  and  condition.     Theodoret  also 
understands   the   king   of  Assyria  to   be  here   described  as    shaved,   but. 
by  the  Medes  and  Persians  as  a  razor.     These  constructions  wholly  dis- 
regard the  preposition    before   "=1^P,  or  take  it  in  the  sense  of  i?z — "will" 
shave  in  the  king  of  Assyria,  the  head,"  &c.     Some  understand  "iHp  ^!)?y3 
as  an  additional  description  of  the  razor — "  with  a  hired  razor,  with  those 
beyond  the  river  with  the  king  of  Assyria."    But  as  "Ti^yrl  and  l^-^?  are  never  . 
used  in  reference  to  persons,  the  former  no  doubt  here  denotes  the  place 
of  hiring — "  a  razor  hired  in  the   parts   beyond   the  river."     If  so,  riTpy^ 
cannot  be  a  noun  (novacula  conductionis),  but  must  be  taken  as  a  verbal 
adjective,  equivalent  to  a  passive  participle,  of  which  this  is  a  common  form 
in  Chaldee.     There  is  no  need  of  changing  the  division  of  the  words,  so  as 
to  read  HT?^  i^?-^^,  since  the  article  before  the  noun  may  be  omitted  by 
poetic  Hcence,  and   "W^  is   construed  as  a  feminine  with  H^iipn.     Instead 
of  hired    (/a,j,a/ff^w/xsVw),    the    Alexandrian    MS.    of  the   Septuagint  reads 
drunken  {fMfj.idvGfj.ivui),  which  is  also  the  version  of  Aquila,   Symmachus,  - 
and  Theodotion  ;  and  accordingly  J.  J).  Michaelis  would  read  HTpt^  under- 
standing by  a  drunken  razor  one  employed  as  a  drunkard  would  employ  it,  - 
i.  e.  recklessly  and  rashly.     The  same  reading  seems  to  be  implied  in  the 
common  text  of  the  Peshito,  though  Ephrem  Syrus  gives  the  Syriac  adjec- 
tive the  sense  of  sharp.    According  to  the  common  reading,  which  is  no  doubt 
genuine,  the  king  of  Assyria  is  called  a  hired  razor,  not  because  men  use 
what  is  hired  more  unsparingly  than  if  it  were  their   own  (Calvin) — nor 
simply  because  he  was  allured  or  hired  by  the  hope  of  conquest  (Jerome, 
Grotius,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  &c.) — nor  simply  because  Ahaz  had  already  hired  • 
him  (Junius,  Piscator,  Glassius,  &c.) — but  for  the  last  two  reasons  put 
together,  that  as  Ahaz  had   profaned  and  robbed   God's  house  to  hire  a 
foreign  razor,  with  which  Israel  and  Syria  might  be  shaven,  so  God  would 
make  use   of  that    self-same    razor   to    shave    Judah,   i.e.  to  remove  its 
population,  or  its  wealth,  or  both.     The  rabbinnical  interpretation  of  "IV^J* 
ClvJI  is  a  poor  conceit,  the  adoption  of  which  by  Gesenius,  if  indicative  of 
nothing  worse,  says  but  little  for  the  taste  and  the  "aesthetic  feeling"  which 
so  often  sits  in  judgment  on  the  language  of  the  Prophet.     The  true  sense 
is  no  doubt  the  one  expressed  by  Ewald  (von  oben  bis  unten),  and  befoi*e 
him  by  Clericus,  who  justly  says  of  the  Rabbinical  expounders  of  the  phrase 
"  rem  turpiculam   de  suo  Prophetse   admetiri  videntur."       The  separate 
mention  of  the  heard  may  have  refei'ence  to  the  oriental  fondness  for  it  and  • 
associations  of  dishonour  with  the  loss  of  it.     The  specific  explanation  of 
the  beard  as  meaning  the  ministers  of  religion  (Vitringa),  or  Sennacherib 
(Vatablus),   &c.,  and  a  like  explanation  of  the  other  terms,  are  not  only 
arlitrary  and  capricious,  but  destructive  of  a  beautiful  and  simple  meta- 
phor, which  represents  the  spoiling  of  Judah  by  foreign  invaders  and  in-, 
truders  as  the  shaving  of  the  hair  from  the  whole  body.    The  same  remark 


180  ISAIAH  VII.  [Yer.  21,  22. 

applies  to  Ilendewerk's  suggestion,  that  the  parts  of  a  country  are  often 
represented  by  those  of  a  human  body,  and  that  the  ^hair  of  the  head  may 
possibly  denote  the  wooded  hills  of  Palestine.  Lowth  applies  Vav  before 
in?  ;  but  the  latter  may  be  poetically  used  for  the  Euphrates,  even  without 
the  article  (Jer.  ii.  18).  Barnes  explains  ngpFl  in  a  passive  sense  ;  but 
'this  requires  li^t,  as  well  as  "i^J?,  to  be  taken  as  a  feminine  noun  contrary  to 
usage,  a  concurrence  of  anomalies  by  no  means  probable.  Henderson 
■makes  n^pri  a  stronger  expression  than  n?5^,  and  translates  it  shall  scrape 
vjj\  which  is  given  by  Geseuius  as  the  primary  sense,  but  that  of  causing  to 
cease  or  removing  is  the  one  best  sustained  by  usage.  The  Targum  para- 
phrases "IJ^J?  as  denoting  various  kinds  of  weapons  used  in  war,  and  the 
Vulgate  almost  seems  to  make  the  razor  itself  the  object  to  be  shaved. 

21,  22.  In  consequence  of  these  spoliations,  the  condition  of  the  coi;ntry 
will  be  wholly  changed.  The  population  left  shall  not  be  agricultural  but 
pastoral.  Instead  of  living  on  the  fruits  of  the  soil,  they  shall  subsist  upon 
spontaneous  products,  such  as  milk  and  honey,  which  shall  be  abundant 
only  because  the  people  will  be  few  and  the  uncultivated  grounds  extensive. 
And  it  shall  he  in  that  day  {that)  a  vian  shall  save  (or  keep)  alive  a  young 
cow  and  two  sheej) ;  and  it  shall  he  (that)  from  the  ahundance  of  the  making 
(yielding  or  production)  of  milk,  he  shall  eat  hutter  (or  curds  or  cheese  or 
cream) ;  for  hutter  and  honey  shall  every  one  eat  that  is  left  in  the  midst  of 
(or  within)  the  land.  There  is  no  need  of  assuming  a  conditional  construc- 
tion— "q.d.  if  one  should  keep" — as  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Maurer,  and  De 
Wette  do — since  this  idea  is  sutficiently  implied  in  an  extract  translation. 
^''i^  does  not  necessarily  mean  eve?-y  man,  implj'ing  that  the  poorest  of  the 
people  should  have  so  much  cattle  (Gesenius),  or  that  the  richest  should 
have  no  more  (Calvin),  but  simply  one  indefinitely  (Hitzig,  Ewald).  The 
piel  of  n^*n  nowhere  else  signifies  to  "keep,  own,  feed"  (Barnes),  nor  to 
hold,  possess  (Gesenius,  Ewald,  &c.).  Its  primary  meaning  is  to  give  life 
originally  (Job  xxxiii.  4),  or  to  restore  it  after  death  (1  Sam.  ii.  6) ;  whence 
by  a  natural  transition  it  is  used  to  denote  the  preservation  of  one's  life  in 
danger  (Ps.  xxx.  4) ;  so  that  unless  we  depart  from  its  proper  meaning 
here,  it  must  denote  not  merely  the  keeping  or  raising  of  the  cow  and  sheep, 
but  their  being  saved  from  a  greater  number,  and  preserved  with  difficulty, 
not  for  want  of  pasture,  which  was  more  than  ever  plentiful,  but  from  the 
presence  of  invaders  and  enemies.  Thus  understood,  the  word  throws  light 
upon  the  state  of  the  country,  as  described  in  the  context.  Hendewerk 
tliiuks  it  not  improbable  that  by  a  cow  and  two  sheep  we  are  to  understand 
a  herd  of  cows  and  two  flocks  of  sheep,  because  so  small  a  number  would 
not  yield  ahundance  of  milk.  But  the  abundance  is  of  course  to  be  rela- 
tively understood,  with  respect  to  the  small  number  of  persons  to  be  fed, 
and  is  therefore  an  additional  .and  necessary  stroke  in  the  prophetic  picture 
— few  cattle  left,  and  yet  those  few  sufficient  to  afford  milk  in  abundance 
to  the  few  inhabitants.  This  abundance  is  expressed  still  more  strongly  by 
describing  them  as  eating,  not  the  milk  itself,  but  that  which  is  produced 
from  it,  and  which  of  course  must  bear  a  small  proportion  to  the  whole ; 
and  as  this  is  the  essential  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  by  mentioning  the 
nxpri,  it  matters  little  whether  it  be  understood  to  mean  butter  ( Scptua- 
gint,  &c.),  cheese  (Hendewerk),  cream  (Hitzig,  De  Wette,  Ewald,  Umbreit, 
Knobel),  or  curds  (Gesenius,  &c.),  though  the  last  seems  to  agi'ee  best 
with  what  we  know  of  oriental  usages.  It  is  here  mentioned  neither  as  a 
.  delicacy  nor  as  plain  and  ordinary  food,  but  as  a  kind  of  diet  independent 
of  the  cultivation  of  the  earth,  and  therefore  implying  a  neglect  of  tillage 


Vee.  23.]  ISAIAH  Vll.  iHl 

and  a  pastoral  mode  of  life,  as  well  as  an  unusual  extent  of  pasturage,  wliich 
may  have  reference,  as  Barnes  suggests,  not  only  to  tlie  milk,  but  to  the 
honey.  The  rabbinical  interpretation  of  these  verses,  as  a  promise  of  abun- , 
dance  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  after  Sennacherib's  retreat  (2  Chron.  xxii. 
27-29),  and  the  adaptation  of  the  same  exposition  to  the  time  of  Christ. 
(Grotius,  Cocceius,  &c.),  appear  to  have  arisen  from  confounding  what  is 
here  said  of  butter  and  lioiwi/  with  a  frequent  description  of  the  promised  • 
land  asjioivhifj  uith  milk  and  honey.  But  not  to  insist  upon  the  circum- 
stance, that  this  is  a  literal  and  that  a  metaphorical  description,  and  tbat 
even  in  the  latter  the  idea  of  abundance  is  conveyed  by  the  fiowinrj  of  the  . 
land  with  milk  and  honey,  which  is  not  here  mentioned ;  let  it  be  observed 
that  even  the  abundance  thus  asserted  of  the  promised  land  is  not  fertility,  - 
but  the  abundance  of  spontaneous  products,  not  dependent  upon  tillage  ; 
and  that  after  Israel  was  possessed  of  Canaan,  and  had  become  an  agricul- 
tural people,  the  natural  emblem  of  abundance  would  no  longer  be  milk 
and  honey,  but  corn  and  inne,  or  flesh  and  fruits,  so  that  the  prospect  of 
subsisting  on  the  fii-st  two,  if  it  did  not  suggest  the  idea  of  personal  priva- 
tion, would  suggest  that  of  general  desolation,  or  at  least  that  of  inteiTupted 
or  suspended  cultivation.  Thus  Boswell,  in  the  Journal  of  his  tour  with 
Dr  Johnson  to  the  Hebrides,  observes  of  the  inhabitants  of  one  of  the  poor 
islands,  that  "  they  lived  all  the  spring  without  meal,  upon  milk  and  curds 
and  whey  alone."  This  verse,  then,  is  descriptive  of  abundance  only  as 
connected  with  a  paucity  of  people  and  a  general  neglect  of  tillage.  It  was 
designed,  indeed,  to  be  directly  expressive  neither  of  abundance  nor  of 
poverty  (Barnes),  but  of  a  change  in  the  condition  of  the  country  and  of  the 
remaining  people,  which  is  further  described  in  the  ensuing  context.  The 
older  interpreters  were  probably  misled  by  the  peculiar  mode  in  which  a 
threatening  is  here  uttered  in  the  tone  of  a  promise,  or  as  Knobel  expresses 
it,  the  words  sound  promising  (klingen  verheissend),  but  contain  a  threat. - 
The  same  thing  had  been  observed  before  by  Henderson,  and  most  of  the 
recent  wi-iters  are  agreed  in  giving  to  the  22d  verse  its  true  sense  as  a  pro- 
phecy  of  desolation.  This  of  course  determines  that  of  the  fiiteenth,  to  which 
Hendewerk  supposes  Isaiah  to  refer  directly,  as  if  he  had  said,  "  This  is 
what  I  meant  by  saying  that  the  child  should  eat  curds  and  honey,  fin- 
curds  and  honey  shall  every  one  eat  that  is  left  in  the  midst  of  the  land." 

23.  Ha\ang  described  the  desolation  of  the  country  indirectly,  by  saying 
what  the  food  of  the  inhabitants  should  be,  the  Prophet  now  describes  it 
more  directly,  b}'  predicting  the  growth  of  thorns  and  briers  even  in  spots 
which  had  been  sedulously  cultivated,  for  example  the  most  valuable  vine- 
yards. And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass)  in  that  day  (that)  every  plaee  tvhere 
there  shall  be  a  thousand  vines  at  (or  for)  a  thousand  silverlinys  (pieces  or 
shekels  of  silver),  shall  be  for  (or  become)  thorns  and  briers,  or  shall  be 
(given  up)  to  the  thorn  and  to  the  brier.  Kimchi  reverses  the  prediction, 
so  as  to  make  it  mean  that  every  place  now  full  of  thorns  and  briers  shall 
hereafter  abound  in  valuable  vines,  which  is  of  course  an  impossible  con- 
struction. Calvin  supposes  the  thousand  silverlinys  or  shekels  to  be  men- 
tioned as  a  very  low  price,  and  understands  the  verse  to  mean  that  every 
place  planted  with  a  thousand  vines  should,  in  these  days  of  desolation,  be 
sold  for  only  so  much,  on  account  o/the  thorns  and  briers  which  had  over- 
run them.  All  other  writers  seem  to  confine  the  threatening  to  the  thorns 
and  briers,  and  to  regard  ^P?  ^'?.^'?  as  a  part  of  the  description  of  a  valuable 
vineyard,  though  they  differ  on  the  question  whether  this  was  the  price  for 
which"  the  vineyard  might  be  sold,  or  its  annual  rent,  as  in  Sol.  Song  viii. 


182  ISAIAH  VII.  [Vee.  24,  25. 

11,  where,  however,  it  is  said  to  be  the  price  of  the  fruit,  and  the  numlier 
of  vines  is  not  mentioned.  The  vines  of  the  Johannisberg  are  valued  at  a 
ducat  each,  according  to  J.  D.  MichaeUs,  who  thinks,  however,  that,  allow- 
ance being  made  for  the  change  in  the  value  of  money,  the  price  mentioned 
in  the  text  was  probably  a  high  one  even  for  a  valuable  vineyard.  Hen- 
derson computes  that  it  was  nearly  one-half  more  than  the  price  at  which 
the  vineyards  of  Mount  Lebanon  were  sold  in  1811,  according  to  Burck- 
hardt,  namely,  a  piastre  for  each  vino. — The  substantive  verb  with  ?  may 
signif}' either  "to  belong  to"  (Hitzig,  Ewald),  "to  be  given  up  to"  (Umbreit), 
"  or  to  become"  (De  Wette,  Knobel),  which  last  is  its  most  usual  meaning. 
The  irregular  repetition  of  the  verb  is  occasioned  by  the  length  of  the 
parenthetical  clause.  The  construction  of  the  sentence  is  entirely  changed 
in  Henderson's  version — in  ecenj  place,  do.,  there  shall  be  briers  and  thorns. 

24.  So  complete  shall  be  the  desolation  of  these  once  favoured  spots, 
that  men  shall  pass  through  them  armed,  as  they  would  through  a  wil- 
derness. With  arroics  and  with  bow  shall  one  (or  shall  a  man)  f/o  thither, 
because  thorjis  and  bric7-s  shall  the  irhole  land  be.     The  essential  idea,  as  the 

'  last  clause  shews,  is  th<at  of  general  desolation  ;  there  is  no  need,  therefore, 
of  supposing  that  the  bows  and  arrows  have  exclusive  reference  to  protec- 
tion against  enemies  (Kimchi),  or  beasts  (Jarchi),  or  robbers  (Clericus), 
or  to  hunting  (Calvin),  as  neither  is  particularly  mentioned,  and  as  it  would 

-  be  natural  to  carry  weapons  into  such  a  region  both  for  protection  and 
the  chase  (Lowth,  Gesenius).  It  is  no  objection  to  the  mention  of  the 
latter,  that  the  people  had  just  been  represented  as  subsisting  upon  milk 
and  honey,  since  these  two  methods  of  subsistence  often  co-exist,  as  be- 
longing to  the  same  state  of  society,  and  both  imply  a  general  neglect  of 
tillage.  The  exact  sense  of  the  last  clause  is  not  that  the  land  shall  become 
thorns  and  briers  (English  version),  as  in  ver.  24,  but  that  it  shall  actually 
be  thorns  and  briers. 

25.  Not  only  the  fields,  not  only  the  vineyards,  shall  be  overrun  with 
thorns  and  briers,  but  the  very  hills,  now  laboriously  cultivated  with  the 
hand,  shall  be  given  up  to  like  desolation.  And  all  the  hills  (i.e.  even  all 
the  hills)  ichich  are  digrjed  with  the  hoe  (because  inaccessible  to  the  plough) 
— thou  shah  not  r/o  (even)  there,  for  fear  of  briers  and  thorns,  and  (being 
thus  uncultivated)  they  shallhefor  a  sending -place  of  cattle  and  a  tramplinff- 
pl  ace  of  sheep  (i.e.  a  place  where  cattle  may  be  sent  to  pasture,  and  which 
may  be  trodden  down  by  sheep).  The  reference  is  probabl}'^  to  the  hills  of 
Judea,  anciently  cultivated  to  the  very  top,  by  means  of  terraces  that  still 
exist,  for  an  account  of  which  by  eye-witnesses,  see  Keith's  Land  of  Israel, 
chapter  xii.,  and  Robinson's  Palestine,  vol.  ii.  p.  187.  Thus  understood, 
the  verse  merely  strengthens  the  foregoing  description,  by  declaring  that 
even  the  most  carefully-cultivated  portions  of  the  land  should  not  escape 
the  threatened  desolation.  It  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  to  give  I'l^^C  ^^ 
ver.  24  the  arbitrary  sense  oi  Ion-lands,  as  distinguished  from  the  mountains 

.  mentioned  here  (Henderson)  ;  much  less  to  understand  ^''Ir}  itself  as  mean- 
ing mounds  or  hillocks  formed  by  the  hoe  (Forerius).  It  is  equally  gra- 
tuitous, and  therefore  inadmissible,  to  take  thorns  and  briers  in  a  different 
sense  from  that  which  they  have  in  the  preceding  verses,  e.ff.  in  that  of  a 
thorn  hedffe,  implying  that  the  vineyard  should  no  longer  be  enclosed 
(Grotius,  Cocceius,  Vitringa),  an  arbitrary  change  which  cannot  be  justified 
by  Matthew  Henry's  epigrammatic  observation,  that  the  thorns,  instead  of 
growing  where  they  would  be  useful,  should  spring  up  in  abundance  where 
they  were  not  wanted.     With  this  explanation  of  thorns  and  briers  is  con- 


Yek.  1.]  ISAIAH  VIII.  183 

nected  an  erroneous  constraction  of  N13R  as  a  verb  in  tlie  third  person, 
agreeing  with  nS";i;'  as  its  subject — "  the  fear  of  thorns  and  briers  shall  not 
come  thither" — i.e.  there  shall  be  no  hindrance  to  their  growth  (Ewald), 
or  no  regard  to  them  (Junius),  or  no  thorn  hedges  (Grotius).  Kimchi  and 
Abarbeuel  connect  this  same  construction  with  the  natural  and  proper  sense 
of  thorns  and  briers,  and  thus  convert  the  verse  into  a  promise  that  in  the 
mountains  there  should  be  no  fear  of  desolation ;  while  Cyril  and  Calvin 
make  it  a  threatening  in  the  form  of  a  promise  (like  ver.  22),  by  explaining 
it  to  mean  that  even  if  the  hills  where  the  remaining  inhabitants  take  refuge 
should  be  tilled,  and  thus  escape  the  fear  of  thorns  and  briers,  it  would 
only  be  because  the  rest  of  the  country  should  be  desolate.  The  simplest 
and  most  satisfactory  construction  is  the  one  now  commonly  adopted,  which 
takes  5<nri  as  the  second  person  used  indefinitely  {thou  for  any  one),  and 
riiS"!."'  as  a  noun  used  adverbially  to  denote /or /ear  of,  which  is  more  agree- 
able to  Hebrew  usage  than  to  suppose  an  ellipsis  of  the  preposition  IP  (Ro- 
senmiiller).  Thus  understood,  the  verse  continues  and  completes  the  des- 
cription of  the  general  desolation,  as  manifested  first  by  the  people's  living 
upon  milk  and  honey,  then  by  the  growth  of  thorns  and  briers  in  the  choicest 
vineyards  and  the  terraced  hills,  and  by  the  conversion  of  these  carefully- 
tilled  spots  into  dangerous  solitudes,  hunting-grounds,  and  pastures. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  prediction  of  the  overthrow  of  Syria  and  Israel  is  now  renewed  in 
the  form  of  a  symbolical  name,  to  be  inscribed  on  a  tablet  and  attested  by 
two  witnesses,  and  afterwards  applied  to  the  Prophet's  new-born  son,  whose 
progress  as  an  infant  is  made  the  measure  of  the  event,  vers.  1-4.  It  is  then 
foretold  that  the  judgment  denounced  upon  Syria  and  Israel  should  extend 
to  Judah,  as  a  punishment  for  distrust  of  God  and  reliance  upon  human 
aid,  in  consequence  of  which  the  kingdom  should  be  imminently  threatened 
with  destruction,  yet  delivered  for  the  sake  of  Immanuel,  by  whom  the 
strength  and  wisdom  of  all  enemies  should  be  alike  defeated,  vers.  5-10. 
The  Messiah  himself  is  then  introduced  as  speaking,  warning  the  Prophet 
and  the  true  believers  neither  to  share  in  the  apprehensions  nor  to  fear  the 
reproaches  of  the  people,  but  to  let  Jehovah  be  an  object  of  exclusive  fear 
and  reverence  to  them,  as  he  would  be  an  occasion  of  destruction  to  the 
unbelievers,  from  whom  the  true  sense  of  this  revelation  was  to  be  concealed, 
and  restricted  to  his  followers,  who,  together  with  the  Prophet  and  the  Son 
of  God  himself,  should  be  for  signs  and  wonders  to  the  multitude,  while 
waiting  for  the  manifestation  of  his  presence,  and  refusing  to  consult  any 
other  oracle  except  the  word  of  God,  an  authority  despised  by  none  but 
those  doomed  to  the  darkness  of  despair,  which  is  described  as  settling 
down  upon  them ;  with  a  sudden  intimation,  at  the  close,  of  a  change  for 
the  better,  especially  in  reference  to  that  part  of  the  country  which  had 
been  most  afilicted  and  despised,  vers.  1 1-23. 

The  Hebrew  and  English  text  difter  here  in  the  division  of  the  chapters. 
A  better  arrangement  than  either  would  have  been  to  continue  the  eighth 
without  interruption  to  the  close  of  what  is  now  the  sixth  (or  seventh)  verse 
of  the  ninth  chapter,  where  a  new  division  of  the  prophecy  begins. 

1.  The  prediction  of  the  overthrow  of  Syria  and  Israel,  contained  in 
chap.  vii.  8,  9,  is  here  repeated,  and  as  before  in  a  symbolical  form.  In 
order  to  excite  immediate  attention,  and  at  the  same  time  to  verify  the  pro- 


184  LSAJAJI  VllL  [Ver.  2. 

phecy,  Isaiah  is  required  to  inscribe  an  enigmatical  name  ou  a  larj^e  tablet 
in  a  legible  character,  with  a  view  to  present  exhibition  and  to  subsequent 
preservation.  The  name  itself  includes  a  prophecy  of  speedy  spoliation. 
And  Jehovah  said  to  me,  take  thee  [or  for  (hi/self)  a  <jreat  tahlct,  i.  c.  great 
in  proportion  to  the  length  of  the  inscription),  and  write  upon  it  ivith  a 
mans  pen  (or  stylus,  i.  e.  in  an  ordhiarv  and  familiar  hand),  To  Mahcr-ahahd- 
hash-huz  [i.e.  Haste-spoil-qnick-proy).  The  name  may  also  be  read  as  a 
sentence — Hasten  spoil!  Vrcif  hastens.  (So  Cocceius :  propera  spolium, 
fostinavit  direptio.)  Others  take  "IH'?,  as  an  infinitive  (either  used  as  such 
or  instead  of  a  preterite),  on  account  of  the  ?  prefixed,  which,  however,  has 
no  more  connection  with  this  than  with  the  other  words,  being  joined  to  it 
merely  as  the  fii-tt  word  in  the  sentence,  just  as  the  English  to  might  be 
prefixed  to  an  inscription.  Here  as  in  ver.  3,  Mahcr-shalal-hash-haz  is  a 
name,  and  the  exhibition  of  the  tablet,  in  the  temple  (Barnes),  or  the  market- 
place (Ewald),  or  the  Prophet's  house  (Knobel),  was  intended  to  suggest 
the  question,  who  is  meant '?  It  is  therefore  less  correct  to  say  that  the 
inscription  is  afterwards  transferred  to  the  child,  than  that  the  name  of  the 
child  is  anticipated  here.  These  four  words  are  not  merely  the  heading  or 
title  of  the  waiting  (Barnes),  but  the  writing  itself.  The  modern  lexico- 
graphers explain  livJ  not  as  a  derivative  of  ?^|,  to  roll,  and  a  synonyme  of 
•^^JP,  a  volume,  but  as  a  derivative  of  H^J,  to  polish,  and  as  meaning  a  tablet 
of  metal,  or  as  Ivnobel  supposes,  of  wood  covered  with  wax.  ti^iH  the  stylus 
used  in  writing  on  such  tablets.  Human  is  here  explained  by  Hendewerk 
as  meaning  common  or  ordinary  in  opposition  to  divine,  but  by  others  more 
probably  in  opposition  to  a  mode  of  writing  only  known  to  some,  and  not 
to  men  in  general ;  whether  the  allusion  be  to  a  sacred  character  (Hender- 
son), or  simply  to  the  letters  used  in  books  as  distinguished  from  those 
used  in  common  life  (Ewald).  Both  the  kind  of  writing  and  the  size  of  the 
tablet  (admitting  larger  characters),  have  reference  to  its  being  legible,  so 
that  lie  may  run  that  readeth  it.     (Hab.  ii.  2.) 

2.  In  order  to  preclude  all  suspicion  of  its  having  been  uttered  after  the 
event,  the  prophecy  is  not  only  recorded,  but  attested  by  two  witnesses. 
And  I  (Jehovah)  vjill  take  to  witness  for  me  credible  loitnesses,  to  wit,  Uriah 
the  priest,  and  Zechariah,  son  of  Jeberechiah.  These  were  not  to  be  wit- 
nesses of  the  Prophet's  marriage  (Luther,  Grotius),  but  of  his  having 
written  and  exhibited  the  prophecy  long  before  the  event.  Uriah  is  pro- 
bably the  same  who  connived  at  the  king's  profanation  of  the  temple 
(2  Kings  xvi.  10-10).  The  word  CJ^^NJ  does  not  relate  to  their  true  cha- 
racter or  standing  in  the  sight  of  God,  but  to  their  credit  with  the  people, 
especially  perhaps  with  the  king,  in  wliirh  view,  as  well  as  on  account  of 
his  ollicial  rank,  Uriah  was  a  very  suitable  witness.  The  same  considera- 
tion makes  it  not  imi)robable  that  the  Zechariah  mentioned  here  was  the 
father-in-law  of  Ahaz  (2  Kings  xviii.  2 ;  2  Chron.  xxix.  1),  perhaps  the 
same  that  is  mentioned  as  a  Levite  of  the  family  of  Asaph  (2  Chron.  xxix. 
13).  The  Zechariah  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xxvi.  5,  seems  to  have  died 
before  Uzziah.  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  was  put  to  death  between 
the  porch  and  the  altar  (Mat.  xxiii.  35)  long  before  this,  in  the  reign  of 
Joash  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  20,  21).  Zechariah  the  Prophet  was  the  son  of 
Bcrechiah,  but  ho  lived  after  the  Babylonish  exile.  The  Rabbins  and  Light- 
foot  give  to  Cny  the  emphatic  sense  of  inartyrs  [iidsTvoii),  witnesses  lor 
the  truth,  and  suppose  Uriah  to  be  the  person  who  prophesied  against 
Judah,  and  was  put  to  death  by  Jchoiakim,  about  ISO  years  after  the  date 


Yer.  3,  4.J  ISAIAJI  VIJL  IHo 

of  this  prediction.  But  such  an  attestation  would  have  been  wholly  irre- 
levant and -useless.  The  Vulgate  takes  the  verb  as  a  preterite  (et  adhibui 
mihi  testes)  and  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Knobel  read  accordingly  '^TJ'^)  "^'i^^  ^  "^ 
conrcrsire.  The  Septuagint,  Targum,  and  Peshito  make  it  imperative 
{/jAoTUPd;  fj.oi  'jo'irtsov),  and  Hitzig  accordingly  reads  HTyn.  Gesenius  for- 
merly preferred  an  indirect  or  subjunctive  construction,  which  is  still  re- 
tained by  Henderson,  and  that  I  should  take  as  witnesses.  The  true  con- 
struction is  no  doubt  the  obvious  one,  and  I  will  cite  as  ivitncsscs  (Hende- 
werk,  Ewald,  Umbreit) — God  being  still  the  speaker,  and  the  matter  being 
one  in  which  the  Prophet  was  concerned  only  as  his  representative,  so  that 
the  ascription  of  the  act  to  God  himself  is  not  only  admissible  but  necessary. 
This  construction  also  accounts  best  for  the  paragogic  form  of  the  verb,  as 
expressing  strong  determination  or  fixed  purpose. 

3.  The  significant  name,  before  inscribed  upon  the  tablet,  is  now  applied 
to  the  Prophet's  new-born  sou,  that  the  child,  as  well  as  the  inscription, 
might  remind  all  who  saw  them  of  the  prophecy.  The  execution  of  the 
previous  command  is  here,  as  in  many  other  cases,  tacitly  included  in  the 
record  of  the  command  itself.  (Vide  supra,  chap.  vii.  4).  And  1  ap- 
proaclu'd  unto  the  Prophetess,  and  she  conceived  and  hare  a  son,  and  Jehovah 
said  to  me,  Call  his  name  Maher-shalal-hash-haz.  Calvin's  supposition 
that  this  passed  in  vision  is  entirely  gratuitous.  This  name,  like  Tmmanuel, 
may  be  understood  as  simply  descriptive  or  s}'mbolical,  but  its  actual  im- 
position is  inferred  by  most  interpreters  from  ver.  18,  where  the  Prophet 
speaks  of  himself  and  his  children  as  signs  and  wonders  in  Israel,  with 
reference,  as  they  suppose,  to  the  names  Shear-jashid>  and  Maher-shalal- 
hash-haz.  The  four  ancient  versions  all  translate  the  name,  and  all,  except 
the  Targum,  with  some  variations  from  the  rendering  in  ver.  1.  Most  of 
the  later  German  writers  adopt  Luther's  version,  Haubehahl  Eileleide,  but 
instead  of  the  first  word  Ewald  has  Schnellraub.  The  pluperfect  construc- 
tion, /  had  apjpjroached,  &c.,  given  by  Junius,  Gesenius,  and  others,  is  not 
only  needless  but,  according  to  Ewald,  Maurer,  and  Hitzig,  nngi'ammatical. 
The  strange  opinion  of  TertuUian,  Basil,  Cyril,  and  Jerome,  that  the  Pro- 
phetess is  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  that  this  verse  is  the  language  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  though  adopted  by  fficolampadius  and  others,  is  rejected  even  by 
Thomas  Aquinas.  The  Prophetess  is  probably  so  called,  not  because  she 
was  inspired  (Grotius),  or  because  she  was  to  give  the  name  Imniannel 
(Hendewerk),  or  because  she  bore  a  part  in  this  prophetical  transaction 
(Calvin),  but  because  she  was  a  prophet's  wife,  as  queen  usually  means  a 
royal  consort,  not  a  queen  suo  jure.  A  remarkable  series  of  prophetic 
names,  imposed  upon  three  children,  is  recorded  in  the  first  chapter  of  Hosea. 

Jr.  It  is  not  merely  by  its  name  that  the  child  is  connected  with  the  pro- 
phecy. The  date  of  the  event  is  determined  by  a  reference  to  the  infant's 
growth,  as  in  the  case  of  ImmanueL  For  he/ore  the  child  shall  Jcnoiv  (how) 
to  cry  my  father  and  my  mother,  one  (or  they  indefinitely)  shall  take  aivay 
the  wealth  of  Dama><cus  and  the  spoil  of  Samaria  he/ore  the  king  of  Assyria, 
i.  e.  into  his  presence,  to  deliver  it  to  him  (Gesenius),  or  in  triumphal  pro- 
cession (Calvin),  or  before  him,  i.  e.  before  he  marches  homeward  himself 
(Hendewerk),  or  simply  m  his  presence,  that  is  by  his  command  and  under 
his  direction.  The  construction  of  ^5b•^  is  indefinite,  so  that  there  is  no 
need  of  supplj-ing  ^)i^'!  as  the  sulject.  The  time  fixed  is  that  of  the  child's 
capacity  not  to  recognise  its  parents,  or  to  talk,  but  to  utter  the  simple 
labial  sounds  by  which  in  Hebrew,  as  in  many  other  languages, /a^/ier  and 
mother  are  expressed.     The  time  denoted  has  been  fixed  by  Vitringa  and 


186  ISAIAH  VIII.  [Yer.  5,  6. 

Eosonm idler  at  three  years,  by  Junius  and  most  later  writers  at  one.  But 
this  very  dittei-ence  of  judgment  seems  to  show  that  the  description  was  in- 
tended to  be  somewhat  indefinite,  equivalent  perhaps  to  our  familiar  phrase 
a  year  or  two,  within  which  time  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  event 
occurred.  Gesenius  alleges  that  the  prophecy  in  reference  to  Israel  was 
not  fulfilled  for  eighteen  years  (2  Kings  xvii.  G),  to  -which  Hengstenberg  re- 
plies that  Samaria  is  here  put  for  the  kingdom  and  not  tor  the  capital  city. 
But  even  if  the  name  be  strictly  understood,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  Samaria  was  plundered  by  Tiglath-pileser  (2  Kings  xv.  29)  although 
not  destroyed,  which  idea  is  in  fact  not  conveyed  by  the  terms  of  the  des- 
cription. ?!n  properly  means  streiujlh,  but  is  specifically  applied  to  military 
strength  and  to  wealth,  which  last  is  the  moaning  here.  The  carrying  away 
of  its  wealth  does  not  necessarily  imply  anything  more  than  such  a  spoiling 
of  the  capital  as  might  be  expec'od  in  the  course  of  a  brief  but  successful 
invasion.  Barnes's  construction  of  the  second  clause — "  Damascus  shall  be 
Lome  away  as  regards  its  riches  " — is  inconsistent  with  the  form  of  the 
original. 

5.  And  Jehovah  added  to  speak  to  me  again  {ox  further)  saying.  Here, 
as  in  chap.  vii.  10,  an  interval  of  time  may  be  assumed.  Hendewerk  sup- 
poses that  in  the  mean  time  the  Assyrians  had  approached  and  the  in- 
vaders been  compelled  to  withdraw  from  Judah. 

G.  The  Assyrian  invasion  is  now  represented  as  a  punishment  of  Judah 
for  distrusting  the  divine  protection  and  seeking  that  of  the  Assryians  them- 
selves.    The  immed'ate  relief  thus  secured  was  to  be  followed  by  a  worse 
calamity  produced  by  those  in  whom  they  now  confided.      Because  this 
people  (Judah,  so  called  in  token  of  divine  displeasure)  hath  forsaken  (or  re- 
jected with  contempt)  the  waters  of  Shiloah  (or  Siloam,  the  only  perennial 
fountain  of  Jerusalem,  here  used  as  a  symbol  of  the  divine  protection)  that 
go  softly  (or  flow  gently,  unaccompanied  by  noise  or  danger),  and  (because 
there  is)  joy  rvith  respect  to  Rezin  and  the  son  of  Ramaliah  (^.  e.  because 
the  Jews  are  exulting  in  the  retreat  of  their  invaders,  caused  by  the 
approach  of  the  Assyrians),  therefore,  &c.,  the  apodosis  of  the  sentence 
being  given  in  the  next  verse.      Steudel  supposes  the   invasion   itself  to 
be  represented  by  the  waters  of  Siloam,  and  contrasted  with  a  worse  inva- 
sion yet  to  come.      Because  they  despised  the  gentle  fountain,  God  would 
bring  upon  them  a  mighty  river.     But  to  this  there  are  several  objections. 
1.  The  fountain  of  Siloam  would  hardly  have  been  used  as  the  emblem  of  a 
foreign  invasion  merely  because  weak  and  unsuccessful.     2.  The  verb  D^:?7 
does  not  mean  simply  to  despise,  but  to  reject  with  contempt  something 
once  esteemed  or  entitled  to  esteem,  and  is  therefore  inapplicable  to  an  in- 
vasion.    3.  God  himself  had  taught  them  to  despise  it  (chap,  ^■i\.  4),  and 
would  not  therefore  have  assigned  their  doing  so  as  a  reason  for  the  punish- 
ment to  be  inflicted.     Calvin  understands  by  the  waters  of  Siloam  the  mild 
and  peaceful  government  of  God,  compared  \vith  the  powerful  military  sway 
of  foreign  monarchs.    Because  the  Jews  despised  their  own  advantages,  and 
admired  the  conquests  of  Pekah  and  Rezin,  therefore  God  would  cause  them 
to  experience  the  hardships  of  Assyrian  domination.     But  the  only  feelings 
"which  the  Jews  can  be  supposed  to  have  experienced  with  respect  to  their 
invaders,  are  fear  at  their  approach,  and  joy  at  their  departure.     That  they 
rejoiced  at  their  success,  is  a  gratuitous  assumption  contradicted  by  the  his- 
tory.    The  same  objection  Hcs,  with  almost  c(iual  force,  against  the  suppo- 
sition of  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Ewald,  and  Knobcl,  that  this  sympathy  with 
the  invaders  is  not  asserted  of  the  whole  nation,  but  of  a  disaffected  party 


Ver.  7.J  ISAIAH  VIII.  187 

who  rejected  the  authority  of  the  family  of  David  (the  waters  of  Siloam), 
and  rejoiced  in  the  success  of  the  enemy.  However  plausible  such  a 
supposition  may  appear,  it  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity,  or  in 
preference  to  an  explanation  which  involves  no  such  imaginary  facts.  Hen- 
derson and  others  understand  by  this  people,  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes, 
whose  apostasy  from  the  true  religion,  and  their  rejection  of  the  theocracy, 
are  here  assigned  as  reasons  for  the  evils  threatened.  A  Jewish  prophet, 
speaking  or  writing  to  the  Jews,  would  of  course  be  understood  to  mean  by 
this  people  those  whom  he  addressed.  It  may  be  said  indeed  that  this  has 
reference  to  the  mention  of  Ephraim  in  the  foregoing  context  (ver.  4).  But 
this  would  prove  too  much,  by  requiring  Syria  to  be  included  in  the  charge 
of  rejecting  the  waters  of  Siloam  (Umbreit),  in  which  case  we  must  either 
suppose  the  words  to  be  used  in  a  twofold  sense,  or  take  DXO  in  that  of  simply 
despising,  which  is  inadmissible.  The  same  objection  lies,  in  a  less  degree, 
against  the  opinion  of  Barnes  and  others,  that  by  this  people  we  are  to 
understand  Israel  and  Judah  as  a  race.  This  is  favoured  by  the  fact  that 
both  these  kingdoms  are  included  in  the  threatenings  of  the  subsequent  con- 
text. Bat  the  exclusion  of  Syria  is  still  more  unnatural  if  Ephraim  is  in- 
cluded. _  The  true  sense  seems  to  be  that  given  by  Hitzig,  except  that  he 
regards  '^Y^*^  as  an  incorrect  orthography  for  DIDp,  the  infinitive  of  D?9  to 
melt,  to  be  dissolved  with  fear.  "Because  this  people  has  rejected  the  waters 
of  Siloam,  gently  flowing,  and  is  afraid  of  Rezin  and  the  son  of  R-emaliah," 
&c.  This  exj)lanation  is  unnecessary,  as  the  sama  people  who  were  terri- 
fied b}'  the  approach  of  the  invaders  would  of  course  rejoice  in  their 
departure.  The  particle  0^  simply  denotes  the  direct  occasion  of  the  joy. 
The  more  definite  idea  of  rejoicing  over  is  suggested  by  the  context.  For 
a  full  description  of  the  fountain  of  Siloam,  and  the  localities  connected 
with  it,  see  Robinson's  Palestine,  vol.  i.  pp.  501-505. 

7.  Therefore  (because  the  people  had  thus  ceased  to  trust  in  the  divine 
protection,  and  rejoiced  in  the  success  of  their  application  to  Assyria),  be- 
hold (as  if  the  event  were  actually  present),  the  Lord  (is)  hrinjing  up  upon 
them  tlie  boaters  of  the  river  {i.  e.  the  Euphrates,  as  an  emblem  of  the  As- 
syrian power),  its  strong  and  many  waters)  here  contrasted  with  the  gently 
flowing  waters  of  Siloam),  to  wit,  the  king  of  Assyria  and  all  his  glory  (with 
particular  reference  to  military  strength  and  display),  and  it  (the  river)  sAaZZ 
come  up  over  all  its  channels  and  go  over  all  its  hanks,  which  may  either 
mean,  that  it  shall  transcend  its  usual  limits,  or  that,  after  submerging  Israel, 
it  shall  overflow  into  Judah  also.  In  favour  of  this  last  interpretation 
is  the  language  of  the  next  verse,  and  the  fact  that  otherwise  the  punish- 
ment of  Ephraim  or  the  ten  tribes  is  not  expressly  mentioned. — The  copu- 
lative conjunction  is  used  by  a  common  Hebrew  idiom  to  introduce  the 
apodosis  of  the  sentence.  The  figure  of  an  overflowing  river  is  peculiarly 
appropriate,  not  only  as  afibrding  a  striking  antithesis  to  the  fountain  men- 
tioned in  the  sixth  verse,  but  because  Ivi^n  is  often  used  absolutely  to  denote 
the  Euphrates,  the  great  river  of  the  Ass3'rian  and  Babylonian  empires. 
Clericus  supposes  that  it  here  denotes  the  Tigris,  as  a  river  of  Assyria 
Proper.  But,  according  to  the  usage  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  writers, 
AssjTia  extended  to  the  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  which  Arrian  describes  as 
rising  above  its  banks  and  overflowing  ty^v  yriv' Kaa-jo'iav.  The  beauty  of  the 
metaphor  is  rendered  still  more  striking  by  the  frequent  allusions,  both  in 
ancient  and  modern  wTiters,  to  the  actual  inundations  of  this  river.  Here, 
as  in  chap.  vii.  17,  18,  the  figures  are  explained  in  literal  expressions  by  the 
Prophet  himself.     Here,  too,  the  explanation  has  been  questioned  as  a  gloss 


188  ISAIAir  VI IT.  [Vkr.  8,  9. 

on  grounds  exclusively  rhetorical.  But  every  repetition,  as  Ewald  well 
observes,  makes  the  hypothesis  of  an  interpolation  more  and  more  impro- 
bable. Its  alleged  incongruity,  if  it  did  not  exclude  it  in  the  first  place, 
must  have  struck  the  most  uncritical  reader  on  its  second  or  third  recurrence. 
Some  suppose  an  allusion  in  nu?  to  the  pomp  of  the  oriental  kings  in  their 
marches.  But  this  is  not  known  to  have  been  an  Assyrian  usage,  and  the 
supposition  is  at  least  unnecessaiy. — Some  understand  by  its  channels  and 
its  hanks  the  channel  and  banks  of  Judah  ;  but  this  construction  agrees 
neither  with  the  proper  meaning  of  the  Avords  nor  with  the  metaphor  of 
which  they  form  a  part.  According  to  Junius,  the  overflowing  of  the  banks 
were  designed  to  represent  the  king  of  Assyria's  violation  of  his  own  en- 
gagements in  oppressing  those  for  whose  relief  he  had  come  forth. 

8.  And  it  (the  river)  shall  jiass  over  (from  Syria  and  Israel)  into  Judah, 
over/Ion'  and  jxiss  throiujh  (so  as  nearly  to  submerge  it),  to  the  neck  shall  it 
reach  (but  not  above  the  head),  and  the  spreadings  of  its  toings  shall  he  the 
filling  of  the  hreadth  of  thy  land,  0  Immanuel  !  The  English  Version  dis- 
turbs the  metaphor  by  using  the  person  pronoun  he  so  as  to  refer  this  verse 
directly  io  the  king,  and  not  to  the  river  v.'hich  represented  him.  It  also 
makes  ^1}  mean  to  p'^ss  through,  which  is  really  expressed  by  1?]!?,  while 
the  former  verb  denotes  a  change  of  direction,  and  subjoins  a  threatening 
against  Judah  to  the  threatening  against  Israel.  By  the  neck,  the  Tai'gum 
understands  Jerusalem,  in  which  it  is  followed  by  Calvin,  Junius,  Piscator, 
Vitringa,  Henderson  and  Barnes,  the  last  of  whom  supposes  a  distinct  allu- 
sion to  the  elevated  site  of  the  Holy  City,  Most  probably,  however,  the 
expression  was  intended  to  denote  nothing  more  than  the  immiuency  of  the 
danger  by  figui'es  borrowed  from  a  case  of  drowning,  the  head  alone  being 
left  above  the  water.  Most  writers  suppose  the  ligure  of  a  stream  to  be 
exchanged  in  the  last  clause  for  that  of  a  bird,  or  for  the  description  of  an 
army  ;  but  Umbreit  and  Knobel  understand  irings  to  be  used  here,  as  often 
elsewhere,  in  the  sense  of  sides  or  lateral  extremities,  and  applied  to  the 
river  itself.  Some  of  the  Jewish  writers  make  ??<-"l3^y  a  proposition,  God 
(is)  with  lis,  in  favour  of  which  is  the  analogy  of  ver.  9  below,  and  the  fact 
that  the  words  are  separately  written  in  most  manuscripts.  In  favour  of 
making  it  a  proper  name  is  the  analogy  of  chap.  vii.  16,  and  the  pronoun  of 
the  second  person  joined  to  the  preceding  word,  thy  land,  Immanuel ! 
Some  of  the  Rabbins  make  the  Prophet  the  object  of  address,  "  thy  land  (0 
Isaiah)."  But  this  is  arbitrary,  and  renders  the  connection  of  the  clauses 
very  harsh.  If  this  had  been  the  meaning,  the  Prophet  would  probably 
have  said,  "  hut  God  is  with  us."  Those  who  regard  Immanuel  as  the  name 
of  a  contemporary  child,  understand  by  tlnj  land  thy  native  land  (as  in  Gen. 
xii.  1  ;  John  i.  8),  and  to  the  (ptestion  why  this  child  should  be  specially 
addressed,  reply  because  he  was  a  sign  to  the  people,  and  his  name  pro- 
phetic. But  as  we  have  seen  that  Immanuel  is  the  Messiah,  thy  land 
must  mean  tlie  land  belonging  to  thee,  thy  dominion  ;  or  rather  both  ideas 
are  included.  Thus  understood,  this  brief  apostrophe  involves  a  prayer  and 
promise  of  deliverance,  acsi  d>xisset,  terra  nihilominus  erit  tua  o  Immanuel  ! 
(Calvin). 

9.  He  now  turns  to  (he  enemies  of  Judah,  and  assures  them  of  the  failure 
of  their  hostile  plans.  The  prediction,  as  in  chap.  vi.  9,  is  clothed  in  the 
form  of  an  ironical  command  or  exhortation.  Be  wicked  (i.  e.  indulge  your 
malice,  do  your  worst)  and  be  broken  (disappointed  and  confounded),  and 
(that  not  only  Syria  and  Israel,  but)  give  ear  all  remote  parts  of  the  earth 
(whoever  may  attack  the  chosen  people),  gird  youtselves  [i.  c.  arm  and 


Ver.  10-12.J  ISAIAU  VIII.  189 

equip  yourselves  for  action),  and  he  broken,  gird  yourselves  and  he  hrolcen 
(the  repetition  implying  the  certainty  of  the  event).  The  first  verb  (■1I^"i) 
has  been  variously  derived  from  T^V'},  y-1"i,  and  yp^,  and  explained  to  mean 
ossocmie  2/owse/yes  (Targum,  Vulgate,  Scc.),hreak  and  he  broken  (AbenEzra, 
Kimchi,  &c.),  make  a  noise  or  rage  (Henderson).  This  last  is  given  b}' 
Gesenius  in  the  second  edition  of  his  German  version ;  in  the  first,  and  in 
his  latest  Lexicons,  he  gives  the  verb  its  usual  sense  of  being  evil  or  malig- 
nant, which  is  also  expressed  by  Luther  (seyd  hose  ihr  Vtilker  !).  It  is  here 
equivalent  to  do  your  worst.  Seeker  and  Lowth,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Septuagint,  read  ly  know  ye,  corresponding  to  13''TNn,  hear  ye.  Hendewerk 
and  Knobel  suppose  Assyria  and  Israel  to  be  exclusively  addressed ;  but 
this  is  directly  contradicted  by  the  second  clause.  The  failure  or  disap- 
pointment threatened  is  of  course  that  of  their  ultimate  design  to  overthrow 
the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  does  not  exclude  the  possibility  of  partial  and 
temporary  successes. 

10.  Not  only  their  strength  but  their  sagacity  should  be  confounded. 
Devise  a  plan,  and  it  shall  he  defeated  (nullified  or  brought  to  nought)  ; 
sjjeak  a  ivord  (whether  a  proposition  or  an  order),  and  it  shall  not  stand  (or 
be  carried  into  execution)  :  for  [Immanucl)  God  [is)  xnth  us.  Junius  and 
Tremellius  make  the  last  word  a  proper  name,  as  in  ver.  8 — "  Loquimiui 
verbum  et  non  existet,  nam  Himmanuelis  (existet  vcrbum)."  This  con- 
struction is  too  forced  to  be  even  called  ingenious.  The  tmith  is,  that  even 
as  a  name  Immanuel  contains  a  proposition,  and  that  here  this  proposition 
is  distinctly  announced,  but.  with  a  designed  allusion  to  the  person  whom 
the  name  describes.  As  if  he  had  said,  "  The  assurance  of  yoivc  safety  is 
the  great  truth  expressed  by  the  name  of  your  deUverer,  to  wit,  that  God 
is  with  us."  The  mere  retention  of  the  Hebrew  word  could  not  convey  its 
sense  in  this  connection  to  the  English  reader. 

11.  The  triumphant  apostrophe  in  ver.  10  is  now  justified  by  an  appeal 
to  the  divine  authority.  I  have  reason  to  address  our  enemies  in  this  tone, 
for  thus  said  Jehovah  to  me  in  strength  of  hand  {i.e.  when  his  hand  was 
strong  upon  me,  when  I  was  under  the  influence  of  inspiration),  and  in- 
structed me  aicay  from  walking  in  the  ivay  of  this  people  {i.  e.  warned  me  not 
to  follow  the  example  of  the  unbelieving  Jews).  When  oce  is  spoken  of  in 
Scripture  as  inspired,  it  is  said  not  only  that  the  spirit  was  upon  him  (Ezek. 
xi.  5),  but  also  that  the  hand  of  Jehovah  was  upon  him  (Ezek.  i.  3;  iii.  22; 
xxxiii.  32 ;  xxxvii.  1),  and  in  one  case  at  least  that  it  was  strong  upon  him 
(Ezek.  iii.  14).  Hence  strength  of  hand  may  have  the  sense  of  inspiration, 
and  the  whole  phrase  here  employed  be  equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  New 
Testament  expressions  h  iiviiiiia.'Kt  (Rev.  i.  10),  h  Jxcracj/  (Acts  xi.  5),  h 
6vva,'j!.ii  xai  -rrviu/xari  ay/'co  (1  Thes.  i.  5).  Henderson  is  right  in  saying 
that  the  translation  taking  vie  by  the  hand  cannot  be  justified,  but  wrong  in 
representing  it  as  "  the  rendering  of  our  common  version,"  the  text  of  which 
has  xvith  a  strong  hand,  and  the  margin  in  strength  of  hand,  the  literal 
translation.  '•JDi??  is  explained  by  Gesenius  as  a  futm'e  Kal  of  unusual  form, 
by  Ewald  as  a  preterite  Piel  with  an  unusual  union-vowel.  Gesenius  con- 
nects it  with  a  phrase  before  it  ("  when  his  hand  was  strong  upon  me,  and 
he  warned  me."  &c.).  Others  more  probably  with  "lO^  113  ("thus  spake 
Jehovah  and  warned  me,"  &c.).  The  author  of  this  communication  is  sup- 
posed by  some  interpreters  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  for  reasons  which  will  be 
explained  below. 

12.  The  words  of  God  himself  are  now  recorded.  Saying,  ye  shall  not 
call  conspiracy  {or  treason)  every  thing  ivhich  this  j)eople  calleth  conspiracy 


190  ISAIAH  VIII.  [Ver.  13,  14. 

(or  treason),  and  ils  fear  ye  shall  not  fear  nor  be  afraid.  'V!\},,  according  to 
etjTBologj'  and  usage,  is  a  treasonable  combination  or  conspiracy.  It  is 
elsewhere  constantly  applied  to  such  a  combination  on  the  part  of  subjects 
against  their  rulers  (2  Kings  xi.  14,  xii.  21,  xiv.  19,  xv.  30).  It  is  not 
sfa'ictly  applicable,  therefore,  to  the  confederacy  of  S}Tia  and  Israel  against 
Judah  (Geseuius,  Rosenmiiller,  Henderson,  &c.),  nor  to  that  of  Ahaz 
■with  the  king  of  Assyria  (Barnes,  &c.).  It  would  be  more  appropriate  to 
factious  combinations  among  the  Jews  themselves  (Aben  Ezra,  Kimchi), 
if  there  were  any  trace  of  these  in  history.  The  correct  view  of  the  pas- 
sage seems  to  be  this.  The  unbelieving  fears  of  the  people  led  them  to 
seek  foreign  aid.  From  this  they  were  dissuaded  by  the  Prophet  and 
his  followers,  who  regarded  it  as  a  violation  of  their  duty  to  Jehovah,  This 
opposition,  like  the  conduct  of  Jeremiah  during  the  ]3al)yk)uian  siege,  was 
regarded  by  the  king  and  his  adherents  as  a  treasonable  combination  to 
betray  them  to  their  enemies.  But  God  himself  commands  the  Prophet  and 
the  true  believers  not  to  be  affected  by  this  false  reproach,  not  to  regard  the 
cry  of  treason  or  conspiracy,  nor  share  in  the  real  or  pretended  teiTors  of 
the  unbelievers. 

13.  Jehorah  of  hosts,  hun  shall  ye  sanctify  {i.  e.  regard  and  treat  as  a 
Holy  God,  and  as  the  Holy  One  of  Israel)  ;  and  he  shall  he  your  fear,  and 
he  your  dread,  i.  e.  the  object  of  these  feelings.  If  Ihey  felt  as  they  ought 
towards  God,  as  supreme  and  almighty,  and  as  their  own  pecuUar  God,  with 
whom  they  were  united  in  a  national  covenant,  they  could  not  so  distrust 
him  as  to  be  alarmed  at  the  approach  of  any..earthly  danger,  f'lV.p  may 
either  be  an  active  participle  (that  which  terrifies  you)  or  a  verbal  noun 
resembhng  iy}'\^  in  its  mode  of  derivation.  The  collocation  of  the  words 
makes  the  sentence  more  emphatic.  Him  shall  ye  fear  is  substantially 
equivalent  to  Him  alone  shall  ye  fear.  Thus  explained,  the  passage  is  at 
once  a  condemnation  of  the  terror  inspired  by  the  approach  of  the  two 
kings,  and  of  the  application,  which  it  had  occasioned,  to  Assp-ia  for  aid 
against  them. 

14.  And  he  (Jehovah)  shall  he  for  (or  become)  a  holy  thing  (an  object  to 
be  sanctified)  and  for  a  stone  of  stiimhling  and  for  a  rode  of  offence  {i.  e.  a 
stone  to  strike  against  and  stumble  over)  to  the  two  houses  of  Israel  (Ephraim 
and  Judah);  for  a  gin  (or  trap)  and Jor  a  snare  to  the  inhabitants  of  Jeru- 
salem. 2i'?i?P  is  by  many  understood  to  mean  a  sanctuary,  in  the  specific 
sense,  or  with  the  acccssoiy  idea,  of  a  refuge  or  asyhon  (Paulus,  Gcsenius, 
Eosenmiiller,  Winer,  Maurer,  Hendewerk,  Baines,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Hen- 
derson). But  although  the  temples  of  the  gods  were  so  regarded  by  the 
Greeks  and  Romans,  no  such  usage  seems  to  have  prevailed  among  the 
Christians  till  the  time  of  Constantine  (Bingham's  Orig.  Eccles.  viii.  11,  1). 
As  to  the  Jews,  the  only  case  which  has  been  cited  to  establish  such  a 
practice  seems  to  prove  the  contrary'.  So  far  was  the  altar  from  protecting 
Joab,  that  he  was  not  even  dragged  away  but  killed  upon  the  spot  (2  Kings 
ii.  28).  J,  D,  Michaelis  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  stone  which  Jacob 
called  Bethel  or  the  residence  of  God  (Gen,  xxviii.  19),  the  same  object 
being  hero  described  as  a  sanctuary  and  as  a  stone  of  stumbling.  But 
although  this  idea  may  be  included,  the  word  has  prol  ably  a  wider  mean- 
ing, and  was  meant  to  bear  the  eame  relation  to  If'tpn  (iu  ver.  13)  that 
N11D  bears  to  li<Tn  and  VIJJO  to  1^"'"ipri.  God  was  the  only  proper  object 
to  be  dreaded,  feared,  and  sanctified,  /.  e.  regarded  as  a  holy  being  in  the 
"widest  and  most  emphatic  sense.  Thus  explained,  the  Hebrew  C^'I'PP  cor- 
responds almost  exactly  to  the  Greek  rh  ayiov,  the  term  applied  to  Christ  by 


Vek.  15,  16.]  ISAIAH  VIII.  191 

the  angel  wlio  announced  his  bu-th  (Luke  i.  35).  In  1  Peter  ii.  7,  where 
this  very  passage  is  apphecl  to  Christ,  n  nijj^  seems  to  be  emploj'ed  as  an 
equivalent  to  ti'^lPP  as  here  used.  To  others  he  is  a  stone  of  stumbling,  but 
to  you  who  believe  he  is  ^  rifLri,  something  precious,  something  honoured, 
something  looked  upon  as  holy.  The  same  application  of  the  words  is 
made  by  Paul  in  Rom.  ix.  33.  These  quotations  seem  to  shew  that  the 
Prophet's  words  have  an  extensive  import,  and  are  not  to  be  restricted  either 
to  his  own  times  or  the  time  of  Christ.  The  doctrine  of  the  text  is,  that 
even  the  most  glorious  exhibitions  of  God's  holiness,  /.  e.  of  his  infinite  per- 
fection, may  occasion  the  destruction  of  the  unbeliever.  The  most  signal 
illustration  of  this  general  truth  was  that  afforded  in  the  advent  of  the 
Saviour.  It  was  frequently  exemplified,  however,  in  the  interval,  and  one 
of  these  exemplifications  was  afforded  by  the  conduct  of  the  unbelieving 
Jews  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  to  whom  the  only  power  that  could  save  them 
was  converted  by  their  own  unbelief  into  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  a  rock 
of  offence.  The  same  idea  is  then  expressed  by  another  simple  and  familiar 
figure,  that  of  a  snare  or  trap.  Both  figures  naturally  suggest  the  idea  of 
inadvertence  and  unforeseen  ruin.  The  two  houses  of  Israel  are  not  the  two 
schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai,  or  the  kingdom  of  Israel  and  the  faction 
that  favoured  it  in  Judah,  both  Avhich  are  rabbinical  conceits,  but  the  two 
rival  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  Ephraim,  here  put  together  to  describe  the 
whole  race  or  nation  of  Israel.  The  sense  is  not  that  Jehovah  would  be 
sanctified  by  Judah,  and  become  a  stumbling-block  to  Israel ;  but  that  to 
some  in  either  house  or  family  these  opposite  events  would  happen.  The 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  are  distinctly  mentioned  as  the  most  conspicuous 
and  influential  members  of  the  nation,  just  as  Jerusalem  itself  is  sometimes 
mentioned  in  connection  with  Judah,  which  really  included  it  {vide  supra, 
chap.  i.  1). 

15.  This  verse  completes  the  threatening  by  an  explicit  declaration  that 
Jehovah  would  not  only  be  a  stumbling-block  and  snare  to  the  houses  of 
Israel,  but  that  many  should  actually  fall  and  be  ensnared  and  broken. 
And  mmuj  shall  stumble  over  them  (the  stone  and  snare) — or  among  them 
(the  children  of  Israel) — and  fall  and  be  broken  and  be  snared,  and  be 
taken.  Gesenius  and  most  of  the  later  writers  refer  03  to  the  stone,  rock, 
&c.  ;  but  Ewald  and  most  of  the  older  writers  to  the  people.  The  first 
construction  points  out  more  distinctly  the  occasion  of  the  threatened  ruin, 
the  last  the  persons  whom  it  should  befall ;  the  general  sense  remains  the 
same  in  either  case. 

IG.  Bind  up  the  testimony,  seal  the  law,  in  my  disciples.  These  are  not 
the  words  of  the  Prophet  speaking  in  his  ovm  person,  but  a  command 
addressed  to  him  by  God,  or  as  some  suppose  by  the  Messiah,  the  tJ^'^pp 
mentioned  in  the  foregoing  verse.  Vitringa  explains  lV  as  the  imperative 
of  "l-l^  to  form,  delineate,  inscribe.  The  command  will  then  be  to  inscribe 
the  revelation  in  the  hearts  of  the  disciples.  It  is  commonly  agreed,  how- 
ever, that  the  root  is  "i!iy  to  bind,  and  that  the  Prophet  is  commanded  to 
tie  up  a  roll  or  volume,  and  to  seal  it,  thereby  closing  it.  By  law  and 
testimony  here  we  maj'  either  understand  the  prophetic  inscription  in  ver. 
1,  or  the  whole  preceding  context,  considered  as  included  in  the  general 
sei>se  of  revelation,  as  God's  testimony  to  the  truth  and  as  a  law  or  declara- 
tion of  his  will.  The  disciples,  or  those  taught  of  God,  are  supposed  by 
some  to  be  Uriah  and  Zechariah,  the  two  witnesses  named  in  ver.  2  ;  by 
others,  the  sons  of  th«  prophets  or  literal  disciples  of  Isaiah ;  but  it  probably 
means  the  better  portion  of  the  people,  those  truly  enlightened  because 


192  ISATAH  Yin.  [Ykr.  17,  18. 

taught  of  God  (chap.  liv.  13),  to  whom  the  knowledge  of  this  revelation,  or 
at  least  of  its  true  meaning,  was  to  be  restricted.  It  is  probaMe,  therefoi-e, 
that  the  preposition  before  *^^?  does  not  mean  to  ox  for  or  ivUh  or  throiit/Ji  ; 
but  either  among  or  in,  i.  e.  in  their  minds  or  hearts.  The  act  described 
is  not  that  of  literally  binding  and  sealing  up  a  material  record,  but  that  of 
spiritually  closing  and  depositing  the  revelation  of  God's  will  in  the  hearts 
of  those  who  were  able  and  willing  to  receive  it,  with  allusion  at  the  same 
time  to  its  concealment  from  all  others.  Ivimchi  regards  these  as  the  words 
of  the  Prophet — nothing  now  remains  but  to  bind  and  aral  the  testimony. 
This,  however,  even  if  we  make  "IV  an  infinitive,  is  a  very  harsh  construction. 

17.  And  I  (the  Messiah)  n-ill  ivait  for  Jehovah,  that  hidelh  his  face  from 
the  house  oj  Jacob,  and  u-ill  expect  him.  Most  writers  make  these  the 
words  of  the  Prophet ;  but  since  he  is  addressed  in  the  verse  preceding, 
without  any  intimatiini  of  a  change  of  speaker  here,  and  since  the  next 
verse  is  quoted  in  Heb.  ii.  13,  as  the  words  of  the  Mcssiuh,  it  seems  better 
to  assume  with  Cocceius  and  Henderson,  that  throughout  this  passage  the 
Messiah  is  the  speaker.  The  phrase  to  wait  upon  has  changed  its  meaning 
since  the  date  of  the  English  version,  the  prominent  idea  being  now  that 
of  service  and  attendance,  not  as  of  old,  that  of  expectation,  wdiich  is  the 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew  verb.  God's  hiding  his  face  from  the  house  of 
Jacob  implies  not  only  outward  troubles  but  the  withholding  of  divine  illumi- 
nation, indirectl}^  threatened  in  the  verse  preceding.  The  house  of  Jacob 
is  the  whole  race  of  Israel,  perhaps  with  special  reference  to  Judah.  The 
thing  to  be  expected  is  the  fulness  of  time  when  the  Messiah,  no  longer  re- 
vealed merely  to  a  few,  should  openly  appear.  For  a  time  the  import  of 
God's  promises  shall  be  concealed  from  the  majority,  and  during  that  inter- 
val Messiah  shall  wait  patiently  until  the  set  time  has  arrived. 

18.  llchold,  I  and  the  children  lohich  Jehovah  hath  given  me  (are) /or 
signs  and  for  wonders  in  Israel  from  Jehovah  of  hosts,  the  (One)  divelling 
in  mount  Zion.  Luther  supplies  a  verb  in  the  first  clause — "Behold, 
here  am  I  and  the  children,"  Sec.  Augusti  repeats  a  verb  from  the  preced- 
ing verse — "  I  and  my  children  trust  in  the  Lord."  Most  writers  supply 
are  after  given  me — "  I  and  my  children  are  for  signs,"  Sec.  From  Jeho- 
vah, i.  e.  sent  and  appointed  by  him.  Of  the  whole  verse  there  are  two 
distinct  interpretations.  1.  According  to  Kimchi,  Rosenmiiller,  Gesenius, 
Ewald,  Barnes,  and  others,  Isaiah  is  the  speaker,  and  the  children  meant 
are  his  two  sons.  Shear- Jashub  and  Maher-shalal-hash-baz  to  which  some 
add  Imma)tuel.  As  all  these  names,  and  that  of  the  Prophet  himself,  are 
significant,  it  is  supposed  that  for  this  reason  he  and  his  children  are  said 
to  be  signs  and  wonders,  personified  prophecies  to  Israel,  from  Jehovah,  who 
had  caused  the  names  to  be  imposed.  2.  According  to  Henderson  and  many 
older  writers,  these  are  the  words  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  children  are  his 
epiritual  seed  (Isa.  liii.  10),  whom  the  Father  had  given  him  (John  vi.  37, 
39,  X.  29,  xvii.  G,  7,  9,  11,  12.)  The  great  argument  in  favour  of  this 
last  interjiretation  is  the  apphcation  of  the  verse  to  Christ  by  Paul  (Heb.  ii. 
13 j,  not  as  an  illustration  but  an  argument,  a  proof,  that  Christ  partook  of 
the  same  nature  with  the  persons  called  his  children  and  his  brethren.  It 
is  true  that  many  who  regard  Isaiah  as  the  speaker,  suppose  him  to  have 
been  a  type  of  Christ  in  this  transaction.  But  a  double  sense  ought  not  to 
be  assumed  where  a  single  one  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  context,  and 
sufficient  to  explain  all  apparent  contradictions,  as  in  this  case,  where,  ad- 
mitting that  the  Messiah  is  the  speaker,  we  have  no  ellipsis  to  supply,  and 
no  occasion  to  resort  to  the  hypothesis  either  of  a  type  or  an  accommoda- 


Ykr.  19,  20.]  ISAIAH  VIII.  193 

tion.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  restrict  tlie  terms,  witli  Henderson, 
to  the  period  of  the  advent,  and  to  our  Saviour's  personal  followers.  Even 
before  he  came  in  the  flesh,  he  and  his  disciples,  i.  e.  all  who  looked  for 
his  appearing,  were  signs  and  wonders,  objects  of  contemptuous  astonish- 
ment, and  at  the  same  time  pledges  of  the  promise. 

19.  And  u'hen  they  (indefinitely  any  one,  or  definitely  the  unbelievers) 
shall  say  to  you  (the  disciples  and  children  of  Messiah,  who  is  still 
speaking).  Seek  unto  (/.  e.  consult  as  an  oracle)  the  spirits  (or  the  spirit- 
masters,  those  who  have  subject  or  familiar  spirits  at  command)  and  to  the 
tcizards  (wise  or  knowing  ones),  the  chirpers  and  the  mutterers  (alluding 
to  the  way  in  which  the  heathen  necromancers  invoked  then-  spirits,  or 
uttered  their  responses) :  should  not  a  j)eople  seek  to  (or  consult)  its  God,  for 
the  livinq  (i.  c.  in  behalf  of  the  living  should  it  resort)  to  the  dead  /  Gro- 
tius  explains  the  last  clause  as  a  continuation  of  the  speech  of  the  idolaters 
— "  Consult  familiar  spii'its  ;  ought  not  a  people  to  consult  its  gods  ?"  But 
since  Jehovah  was  the  God  of  Israel,  such  an  argument  would  defeat  itself. 
It  is  better  to  regard  this  clause  as  the  reply  of  the  believing  Jews  to  those 
who  tempted  them.  Ewald  and  others  give  1^?  the  meaning  of  instead — 
'*  Should  a  people  consult  the  dead  instead  of  the  living  God?"  It  is  more 
consistent  mth  the  usage  of  the  language  to  take  the  preposition  in  the  sense 
of  for,  i.  e.  for  the  benefit  or  in  behalf  of.  "  When  you,  my  disciples,  are 
invited  by  superstitious  sinners  to  consult  pretended  wizards,  consider  (or 
reply)  that  as  the  heathen  seek  responses  from  their  gods,  so  you  ought  to 
consult  Jehovah,  and  not  be  guilty  of  the  folly  of  consulting  senseless  idols 
or  dead  men  for  the  instruction  of  the  living."  Henderson  supposes  the 
Prophet  to  be  speaking  in  his  own  person  ;  but  if  the  Messiah  is  the  speaker 
in  ver.  18,  it  is  gratuitous  and  therefore  arbitrary  to  suppose  another  speaker 
to  be  introduced  without  any  intimation  of  the  change. 

20.  Instead  of  resorting  to  these  unprofitable  and  forbidden  sources,  the 
disciples  of  Jehovah  are  instructed  to  resort  to  the  laiv  and  to  the  testimony 
{i.e.  to  divine  revelation,  considered  as  a  system  of  belief  and  as  a  rule  of 
duty) — if  they  speak  [i.e.  if  any  speak)  not  according  to  this  ivord  (another 
name  for  the  revealed  will  of  God),  it  is  he  to  whom  there  is  no  dawn  or 
morning  (/.  e.  no  relief  from  the  dark  night  of  calamity). — The  first  clause 
is  elliptical.  Cocceius  alone  connects  it  immediately  with  what  precedes, 
and  understands  ?  as  meaning  besides — "  in  addition  to  the  law  and  the  tes- 
timony which  we  have  already."  Others  supply  a  new  verb  return,  adhere, 
come,  (JO,  &c.  It  is  best,  however,  to  repeat  y^'?'^  from  the  preceding  verse, 
especially  as  this  verb  is  elsewhere  followed  by  ?  in  the  same  sense.  (See 
2  Chron.  xvii.  3,  4.  Comp.  Job  x.  6). — Piscator  violates  the  accents  by 
separating  N7  Di<  from  IIDX''.  <«  If  not  («'.  e.  if  they  will  not  come  to  the 
law  and  the  testimony),  let  them  say,"  &c.  Junius  takes  N?  D{<  as  equiva- 
lent to  ^^n,  which  it  never  is,  unless  another  interrogation  precedes, 
Knobel  refers  to  the  S^/H  m  ver.  19 ;  but  this  is  too  remote,  and  is  more- 
over separated  from  iO  DN  by  the  first  clause  of  ver.  20.     Kimchi,  Abar- 

benel,  Cocceius,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  make  N?  Di<  the  common  elliptical  formula 
of  swearing — "  if  they  will  not  say,"  /.  e.  they  surely  will  say.  Ewald 
adopts  the  same  construction,  and  explains  the  verse  to  mean  that  when 
they  are  reduced  to  extremity  (as  those  who  have  no  dawn)  they  will  begin 
too  late  to  sjjeak  according  to  this  word,  i.e.  join  in  the  appeal  to  the  law 

VOL.  I.  N 


194  ISAIAH  VIII.  [Vee.  21. 

and  to  the  testimony,  which  they  now  despise.  Umbreit  modifies  this  inter- 
pretation by  giving  DX  its  strict  conditional  mcrining,  and  continuing  the 
sentence  through  the  next  verse — "  If  they  do  not  thus  speak,  to  whom 
there  is  no  morning,  then  they  must  pass  through  the  hind,"  &c. — X*K, 
which  is  properly  the  relative  pronoun,  is  omitted  by  the  Vulgate,  and  ex- 
plained in  the  English  Version  and  by  Barnes  as  a  causal  particle.  De 
Dieu,  Vitringa,  and  some  others  make  it  a  particle  of  asseveration,  certainly; 
surehj  ;  Gesenius  the  sign  of  the  apodosis,  then  there  is  no  daivn  to  them; 
J.  H.  Michaelis,  a  substitute  for  ''3,  but  in  the  sense  of  that,  "  know  ye 
that."  So  the  Dutch  Version,  "  it  shall  come  to  pass  that."  All  these 
are  needless  and  therefore  inadmissible  departures  from  the  ordinaiy  usage. 
Of  those  who  give  the  word  its  proper  meaning  as  a  relative  pronoun,  some 
refer  it  to  the  noun  immediately  preceding — this  u-ord  nhich  (Lowth) — 
others  to  the  people  or  to  some  individual  among  them — theij  uho  have  or 
he  who  has  no  moniinf/  (Hitzig,  Ewald,  Umbreit).  But  the  best  construc- 
tion seems  to  be  that  of  Hendewerk,  who  suppUes  the  substantive  verb 
before  the  relative,  "  they  are  as  one  who  has  no  morning,"  or  better  still, 
"  it  is  he  who  has  (or  they  who  have)  no  morning."  None  can  speak  incon- 
sistently with  God's  word — or,  none  can  refuse  to  utter  this  word,  viz.  to 
the  law  and  to  the  testimony — but  one  whom  God  has  abandoned — "  If  our 
gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them  that  are  lost  "  (2  Cor.  iv.  3).  Quem  Deus 
vult  perdere  prius  dementat.  Lowth  renders  ID??'  obscurity,  from  the 
analog)'  of  inti',  black,  and  "lintf',  blackness.  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Dathe,  and 
Augusti,   make  it  equivalent  to  the  Arabic  ^g^^,  meaning  magic — "  His 

word  in  W'hich^there  is  no  magic,"  i.  e.  no  deception.  But  the  Hebrew  ^ord 
is  never  used  in  this  sense.  Calvin,  the  English  Version,  Barnes  and 
others,  give  it  the  general  sense  of  lir/ht — "it  is  because  there  is  no  light 
{i.e.  knowledge  or  sound  judgment)  in  them."  But  according  to  usage, 
the  word  means  specifically  morning-light,  the  dawn  of  day  succeeding 
night,  and  is  so  rendered  by  the  Vulgate  (matutina  lux),  Luther  (Morgen- 
rothe),  and  most  modern  writers.  By  this  Vitringa  understands  the  morn- 
ing of  the  rcsm-rection,  and  J.  H.  Michaelis  the  epiphany  of  Christ.  Bat 
as  night  is  a  common  figure  for  calamity,  the  dawn  will  natm-ally  signify  its 
termination,  the  return  of  better  times.  (See  chap.  Iviii.  8,  xlvii.  11 ;  Job 
xi.  17.)  They  may  be  said  to  have  no  daivn,  for  whom  there  is  nothing 
better  in  reserve. 

21.  J7id  thnj  (the  people)  shall  pass  through  it  (the  land)  hardly  bestead 
{i.e.  distressed)  and  hungry :  and  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass)  that  when 
they  are  hungry  they  shall  fret  theinselves,  and  curse  their  king  and  their  God, 
and  shall  look  upward.  Those  inteqireters  who  make  the  whole  of  the  pre- 
ceding verse  conditional,  explain  the  1  at  the  beginning  of  this  as  the  sign  of 
the  apodosis — "  If  they  speak  not,  &c.,  tlien  shall  they  pass,"  &c.  So  J. 
D.  Michaelis,  Dathe,  and  Augusti.  The  latter  supplies  people  as  the  sub- 
ject of  "i?!^;  Lowth  and  the  Dutch  Version,  every  one  of  them  ;  but  this  is 
unnecessary.  The  verbs,  though  singular  in  form,  like  ?  in  the  preceding 
verse,  refer  to  the  subject  of  the  plural  •lipj^]'.  Jerome  repeats  ini*'  as  the 
subject  of  "l?V  (lux  pertransibit),  light  shall  pass  through  the  land,  but  not 
continue  in  it. — Through  it,  not  the  condition  just  described  (Schroeder), 
nor  the  law  (either  in  the  sense  of  searching  or  in  that  of  transgressing  it), 
nor  the  earth  or  the  gentile  part  of  it  (as  some  of  the  Jews  explain  it),  nor 
Zion  mentioned  in  vor.  18  (Cocceius),  but  the  land  of  Judah,  which,  though 
not  expressly  mentioned  till  the  next  verse,  is  tacitly  referred  to  by  a  com- 


Ter.  22.]  ISAIAH  VIII.  19o 

mon  Hebrew  idiom.  (See  Ps.  Ixviii.  16 ;  Ixxxvii.  1).  Grotius  repeats 
liis  favourite  suggestion,  that  the  Prophet  pointed  to  the  ground  when  he 
said  nil,  so  that  the  gesture  and  the  word  together  meant  this  land — n^'p3  is 
not  hardened  in  a  moral  sense,  but  hardly  treated  or  distressed,  as  appears 
from  the  addition  of  ^V!^.  This  last  is  not  expressive  of  bodily  hunger 
(Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Maurer),  nor  of  spiritual  famine  (Cocccius)  ;  nor  is  it  a 
mere  figure  for  the  absence  of  all  comfort  and  tranquillity  of  mind  (Vitringa), 
but  a  term  implying  destitution  both  of  temporal  and  spiritual  good  (J.  H. 
Michaelis).  Calvin,  Lowth,  and  Barnes,  understand  flVi^nn  as  expressing 
self-reproach  or  anger  with  themselves ;  but  this  is  not  consistent  with  the 
subsequent  description  of  their  desperate  impenitence.  The  reflexive  form, 
which  occurs  nowhere  else,  more  probably  denotes  to  excite  one's  self  to 
anger.  His  king  is  not  his  earthly  sovereign,  the  king  of  Judah  (Grotius), 
of  Judah  or  Israel  as  the  case  might  be  (Hitzig),  or  his  idol,  particularly 
Moloch  or  Milcom,  names  derived  from  "^^O  (Targum,  Calvin,  Junius),  but 
Jehovah  considered  as  the  king  of  Israel.  So  too  1''n?X  is  not  his  false 
god,  his  idol,  but  the  God  whom  he  was  bound  to  serve,  his  God,  who  at 
the  same  time  was  his  king  (Henderson),  As  the  verb  to  curse  does  not 
elsewhere  take  the  preposition  3  as  a  connective,  Cocceius  proposes  to  trans- 
late the  phrase  he  shall  curse  by  his  king  and  by  his  God,  by  which  he  seems 
to  understand  the  conduct  of  the  Jews,  who  at  one  time  cursed  Ca3sar  in 
Jehovah's  name,  and  at  another  time  rejected  Christ  saying.  We  have  no 
king  but  Caesar  !  Thus  they  alternately  cursed  their  king  in  God's  name, 
and  cursed  God  in  their  king's.  The  art  of  looking  up  is  by  some  regarded 
as  a  sign  of  penitence  or  of  conversion  from  idols  to  the  true  God  ;  but  this 
is  inconsistent  with  the  terms  of  the  next  verse.  Junius,  Piscator,  and  the 
Dutch  annotators,  connect  it  with  the  cursing  as  an  accompanying  gesture 
— "  they  shall  cui'se  their  king  and  their  God,  looking  up."  But  this 
clause  is  really  in  close  connection  with  the  fii'st  of  the  next  verse,  and 
both  together  must  be  understood  as  indicating  utter  perplexity  and  absolute 
despair  of  help  from  God  or  man,  from  heaven  or  earth,  from  above  or  below. 
22.  And  to  the  earth  he  shall  look  ;  and  behold  distress  and  darkness,  dim- 
ness of  anguish,  and  into  darkness  (he  shall  he)  driven — or,  the  dimness  of  }( 
anguish  and  of  darkness  is  dispelled.  Heaven  and  earth  are  here  opposed 
to  one  another,  as  sea  and  land  are  in  chap.  v.  30.  Distress  and  darkness 
are  here  identified,  as  distress  and  light  are  there  contrasted.  Junius  and 
Henderson  explain  ^-IVP  as  a  participle,  corresponding  to  H'jljp  iu  the  last 
clause  (darkened  with  distress,  driven  into  gloom)  ;  but  there  is  no  such 
participal  fonn.  Cocceius  explains  it  as  a  noun  denoting  the  dizziness  and 
dimness  of  sight  produced  by  great  distress  (vertigo  arctationis),  which 
may  also  be  the  meaning  of  the  Septuagint  version  [ay.orog  'JJtjTe  firi 
/3>Jff£/i/).  The  true  sense  of  the  Hebrew  word  is  outward  and  inward 
gloom,  distress  of  circumstances  and  despair  of  mind.  It  is  separated  from 
what  follows  by  Calvin  (caligo,  augustia)  and  Barnes  (gloom,  oppression), 
but  is  really  a  construct  form  governing  nj^-IV.  As  the  latter  originally  sig- 
nifies pressure  or  compression,  Gesenius  explains  the  phrase  to  mean  darJc- 
oiess  of  compression,  i.  e.  dense  or  compact  darkness.  But  n|>1V  is  here 
(as  in  Isa.  xxx.  6  ;  Prov.  i.  27)  a  synonyme  of  n^y,  both  denoting  straitened 
circumstances  and  a  corresponding  state  of  mind. — The  Peshito  translates 
n'^^P  as  an  active  verb,  and  the  Vulgate  as  an  active  participle  (caligo  per- 
sequens).  The  Targum,  Cocceius,  and  Yitringa,  suppose  the  passive  par- 
ticiple to  be  here  used  as  an  abstract  noun  (caligo,  impulsio).  Saaclias, 
Munster,  Barnes,  and  others,  make  '^'JP.'?  an  epithet  of  •"'<?'?  ("  obscuritas 


190  ISAlAli    VIII.  |Yer.  23. 

impulya,"  "  deepeneil  darkness"),  but  the  latter  word  is  feminine.  Lowth 
as  usual  cuts  the  knot  by  proposing  to  read  either  7Sfc<  or  nmjD,  and 
Kochcr  by  taking  the  latter  as  a  neuter  noun  in  apposition  with  the  fomier. 
Jarchi,  Kimchi,  Calvin,  Junius,  Hosenmiiller,  Gesrnius,  Ewald,  and  others 
refer  rT^jp  to  the  people  or  the  person  who  is  the  subject  of  the  verb  12*3^, 
and  either  supply  a  preposition  before  '"l^.P^?,  or  exjilaiu  it  as  an  accusative 
after  a  verb  of  motion.  The  meaning  will  then  be  thrust  or  driven  into 
darkness.  The  objections  to  this  construction  are,  first,  the  necessity  of 
supplying  both  a  verb  and  ])reposition  ;  and  secondly,  the  uniisual  colloca- 
tion of  the  words  m:0  n^QS  for  H^DN  ^K  m:D.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
strongly  recommended  by  the  analogy  of  Jer.  xxiii.  12,  where  the  same  idea 
is  expressed  by  the  union  of  the  same  verb  and  noun.  Another  constniction 
is  the  one  proposed  ])y  J.  I).  Michaelis,  who  connects  mJO  with  ^U'O,  and 
puts  the  latter  hi  construction  not  only  with  HpIV  but  also  with  npDX,  "  the 
dimness  of  anguish  and  of  gloom  is  dissipated."  This  construction  is  re- 
commended by  its  freedom  from  grammatical  anomalies,  and  by  its  rendering 
the  use  of  ^3  at  the  beginning  of  the  next  verse  altogether  natural.  The 
objections  to  it  are,  that  it  violates  the  accents  ;  that  it  makes  the  Prophet 
speak  of  the  darkness  of  darkness  (but  see  Exod.  x.  22) ;  and  that  the 
transition  from  the  threatening  to  the  promise  is,  on  this  supposition,  too 
abrupt.  Either  of  the  two  constructions  last  proposed  may  be  preferred 
without  materially  affecting  the  interpretation  of  the  passage.  Hitzig 
modifies  that  of  Michaelis  by  taking  the  last  word  separately — it  is  dis- 
pelled ! 

23.  This  darkness  is  to  be  dispelled, /or  (there  shall)  not  (be)  darhiess 
ffor  ever^  to  her  uho  is  now  distressed  (literally,  to  whom  there  is  distress). 
The  present  calamity,  or  that  just  predicted,  is  not  to  be  perpetual.  The 
future  state  of  things  shall  exhibit  a  strange  contrast  with  the  former.  As 
the  former  time  degraded  the  land  of  Zebulon  and  the  land  of  Naphtali,  so 
the  latter  glorifies  the  way  of  the  sea,  the  bank  of  the  Jordan,  Galilee  of  the 
'Gentiles.  The  same  region  is  described  in  both  clauses,  namely,  the  nor- 
thern extremity  of  the  land  of  Israel.     This  is  designated,  first,  by  the 

•  tribes  which  occupied  it,  then,  by  its  relative  position  with  respect  to  the 
Jordan  and  the  sea  of  Tiberias.  This  part  of  the  country,  from  being  the 
most  degraded  and  afflicted,  should  receive  peculiar  honour.     Its  debase- 

.ment  and  distress  both  arose  from  its  remote  and  frontier  situation,  proxi- 
mity to  the  heathen,  intercom'se  and  mixture  with  them,  and  constant  ex- 
posure to  the  fii'st  attacks  of  enemies,  who  usually  entered  Canaan  from  the 
north.  To  the  former  of  these  reasons  may  be  traced  the  expressions  of 
contempt  for  Galilee  recorded  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  (John  i. 
46,  vii.  52  ;  Mat.  xxvi.  G9 ;  Acts  i.  11,  ii.  7).  How  this  disgrace  was  to 
be  exchanged  for  honour,  is  explained  in  the  next  verse.  Besides  this, 
which  seems  to  be  the  most  satisfactory'  interpretation,  there  are  several 
others,  more  or  less  at  variance  with  it.     The  English  version  supposes  a 

•contrast  not  merely  between  ^P3  and  T"??!?!,  but  between  these  two  and  the 
subsequent  deliverance.      This  requires  ^i?n  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of 

dighthj  afjlicting,  as   distinguished   from   T'^^^ ,  io  a fff ict  more  grievously., 

•  But  this  distinction  is  unauthorised  by  usage.     The  Vulgate  renders  ^i^n  al- 
.  leviata  est.      Some  of  the  Jewish  writers  make  it  mean  to  lighten  the  coun- 
try by  removing  its  inhabitants  ;  but  then  T??'"!  must  mean  to  bring  them 
back  again.     Koppe  mak(;s  Judah  the  subject  of  the  promise.     As  Galilee 
was  first  afflicted,  then  delivered,  so  should  Judah  be  ;  but  this  is  wholly 


ISAIAH  IX.  197 

arbitrary.  Cocceius  converts  the  promise  into  a  threat  by  reading  there 
was  not  (or  has  never  been)  such  darkness.  Gesenius,  Rosenmiiller,  Ewald, . 
and  others,  give  to  \3  the  sense  of  hut,  because  what  immediately  precedes 
is  understood  by  them  not  as  a  promise  but  a  threatening.  Vitringa  and 
Junius  retain  the  proper  meaning /or,  but  connect  it  with  ver.  16  or  ver. 
18.  The  necessity  of  either  supposition  is  removed  by  explaining  the  last 
clause  of  ver.  22,  with  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Hitzig,  as  the  beginning  of  the 
promise.  The  Vulgate  connects  ^J^-10  S?  with  ver.  22  and  translates  it  non, 
poterit  avolare,  as  if  from  ^l-IV,  to  fly  ;  but  it  is  obviously  a  cognate  form  to 

^•ty?  in  the  preceding  verse.    Hitzig  explains  ^^'''^  ^  ^s  a  compound,  mean- . 
ing  the  negative  or  opposite  of  darkness,  i.  e.  light,  as  I'V  ^^  (chap.  x.  15) 
means  that  which   is  not  wood.     Some  regard  3  as  a  temporal  particle,  at. 
or  ill  the  former  time.     Jvmius,  Rosenmiiller,  Gesenius,  and  others  make  it 
a  conjunction,  as  the  former  time  debased,  &c.     The  original  construction 
seems  to  be  like  the  former  time  (which)  debased,  &c.     Of  those  who  regard 
/PD  and  T'Spn  as  descriptive  of  difierent  degrees  of  affliction,  some  suppose- 
the  invasion  of  Tiglath-pileser  tojbe  compared  with  that  of  Shalmaneser  ;  or 
the  invasion  of  Israel  with  that  of  Judah  ;  or  the  Assyrian  with  the  Baby-  ■ 
Ionian  conquest ;  or  the  Babylonian  with  the  Roman.     The  sea  mentioned 
in  the  last  clause  is  not  the  Mediterranean  but  the  sea  of  Galilee,  as  appears  . 
from  Mat.  iv.  15,  16.     "i^V.  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  side  ox  part  adjacent.. 
The  region  spoken  of  was  that  along  the  Jordan  (on  one  or  both'sides),  near- 
the  sea  of  Galilee.     According  to  Junius,   Galilee  of  the  Gentiles  means 
Galilcea  ^pulosa.     Gesenius  admits  that  Isaiah  has  reference  to  the  times  . 
of  the   Messiah  in   this   promise    of  deliverance   and   exultation  to   the 
Galileans. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

The  change  for  the  better,  which  was  promised  at  the  close  of  the  eighth 
chapter,  is  described  in  the  ninth  as  consisting  in  the  rise  of  the  great  light 
upon  the  darkness,  in  the  increase  of  the  nation  and  their  joy,  excited  by 
deliverance  from  bondage  and  the  universal  prevalence  of  peace,  arising 
from  the  advent  of  a  divine  successor  to  David,  who  should  restore,  estab- 
lish, and  enlarge  his  kingdom  without  any  limitation,  vers.  1-  6. 

From  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  the  Prophet  suddenly  reverts  to  his. 
own,  and  again  predicts  the  punishment  of  Ephraim  by  repeated  strokes. 
The  people  had  been  warned  both  by  messages  from  God  and  by  experi- 
ence, but  had  continued  to  indulge  their  proud  self-confidence,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  God  allowed  the  Assj-rians,  after  overthrowing  Rezin,  to 
attack  them  also,  while  at  the  same  time  they  were  harassed  by  perpetual 
assaults  from  their  hostile  neighbom's,  vers.  7-11. 

Still  they  did  not  repent  and  return  to  God,  who  therefore  cut  off  sud- 
denly many  of  all  classes,  but  especially  the  rulers  of  the  nation  and  the 
false  prophets,  the  flattering  seducers  of  the  wretched  people,  from  whom 
he  must  now  withhold  even  the  ordinary  proofs  of  his  compassion,  vers. 
12-16. 

All  this  was  the  natural  effect  of  sin,  like  a  fii-e  in  a  thicket,  which  at 
last  consumes  the  forest,  and  involves  the  land  in  smoke  and  flame.  Yet 
amidst  these  strokes  of  the  divine  displeasure,  they  were  still  indulging 
mutual  animosities  and  jealousies,  insomuch  that  Israel  was  like  a  fam- 


108  ISAIAH  IX.  [Veh.  1. 

ished  man  devouring  his  own  flesh.  Manasseh  thus  devoured  Ephraim 
and  Epbniim  Manasseh,  while  the  two  together  tried  to  devoui-  Judah,  vers. 
17-20. 

The  recurrence  of  the  same  clause  at  the  end  of  vers.  11,  16,  20,  and  the 
fourth  verse  of  the  next  chapter,  has  led  the  modern  Germans  to  regard 
this  as  a  case  of  regular  strophical  an-angement ;  and  as  the  same  form 
occurs  ahove  in  chap.  v.  25,  Ewald  interpolates  that  verse  between  the 
sixth  and  seventh  of  this  chapter,  as  a  part  of  the  same  context.  The  ob- 
jection to  these  critical  hypotheses  \\\\\  be  stated  in  the  exposition. 

It  has  been  obsencd  already  that  the  division  of  the  chapters  is  in  this 
part  of  the  book  peculiarly  unfortunate  ;  the  first  part  of  the  ninth  (vers. 
1-G)  containing  the  conclusion  of  the  eighth,  and  the  fii'st  part  of  the  tenth 
(vers.  1—4)  the  conclusion  of  the  ninth. 

The  numbers  of  the  verses  in  this  chapter  ditier  in  the  Hebrew  and 
English  Bibles  ;  what  is  the  last  verse  of  the  eighth  in  the  former  is  the  first 
of  the  ninth  in  the  latter.  The  references  in  the  commentary  are  all  to  the 
divisions  of  the  Hebrew  text, 

1.   Tlie  people  (just  described,  i.  e.  the  people  of  Galilee^,  iJiose  xoalhing 

•  in  the  dark  (expressive  both  of  spiritual  blindness  and  exireme  distress), 
have  seen  a  great  light  (the  change  being  presented  to  the  Prophet's  view 
as  already  past) :  the  dwellers  in  the  land  of  the  shadow  of  death  (r.  e.  of 
intense  darkness),  light  has  beamed  upon  them.  These  words,  in  a  gene- 
ral sense,  may  be  descriptive  of  any  great  and  sudden  change  in  the  con- 
dition of  the  jDCople,  especially  of  one  from  ignorance  and  misery  to  illumi- 

.  nation  and  enjoyment.  They  are  still  more  appropriate  to  Ch^t  as  the 
light  of  the  world  (John  viii.  12),  a  light  to  the  nations  (Isa,  xlii.  o,  xlix.  6), 
and  the  Sun  of  righteousness  (Mai.  iv.  2),  which  rose  upon  the  world  when 
he  manifested  forth  his  glory  by  his  teachings  and  his  miracles  in  Galilee 
(John  ii.  11).  It  was  in  this  benighted  and  degi-aded  region  that  he  first 
appeared  as  a  messenger  from  God  ;  and  in  that  appearance  we  are 
expressly   taught   that   this   prediction   was   fulfilled   (Mat.    iv.     12-17). 

•Cocceius  needlessly  supposes  these  to  be  the  words  of  a  new  speaker. 
There  is  nothing  to  intimate  a  change  of  subject,  and  this  verse  is  really  a 
mere  specification  in  positive  form  of  the  negative  prediction  in  the  first 

..clause  of  the  verse  preceding.  By  the  pe"2)le  we  are  not  to  understand  all 
Israel  (Maurer),  nor  the  Jews  as  distniguished  from  the  ten  tribes  (Kimchi, 
Calvin),  nor  the  people  of  Jerusalem  (Jarchi,  Aben  Ezra,  Grotius),  nor  the 

•  people  of  God,  the  spiritual  Israel  (Cocceius),  but  the  Galileans  who  had 
just  been  mentioned  (Junius,  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Yitringa,  Hendewerk).  By 
•darkness  Piscator  understands  sorrow;   Gcsenius,  calamity  in  general ;  the 

Targum,  Israel's  sufi'erings  in  'Egypt;  Jarchi,  Kimchi,  and  Grotius,  those 
of  Judah  during  Sennacherib's  invasion  ;  Calvin,  those  of  the  Jews  ;  and 
Hendewerk  those  of  the  ten  tribes,  in  exile.  But  it  rather  expresses  the 
.  complex  idea  of  a  str;te  of  sin  and  misery  (Ps.  cvii.  10,  11),  including  out- 
ward and  inward  darkness,  the  darkness  of  ignorance  and  the  darkness 

•of  distress.  De  Dieu  and  Fiirst  make  ri1D?V  a  simple  derivative  of  o?)i  with 
a  feminine  termination,  like  niD?0  from  1?0.     The  more  common  and  pro- 

•bablc  opinion  is  that  it  is  a  compound  of  Vv  and  HID.     It  is  not  the  proper 

•name  of  a  particular  valley  (Hitzig),  but  a  poetical  designation  of  the  most 
profound  obscurity — as  dark  as  death — deadly  darkness — with  a  special 
allusion  here  to  the  spiritual  death,  under  whose  shade  the  Galileans  sat. 

•Instead  oi  have  seen,  Luther,  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Gesenius,  and  others,  have 


Ver.  2.J  ISAIAH  IX.  199 

the  present  see,  as  if  the  Prophet  while  speaking  beheld  a  eudden  flash. 
Light  is  not  merely  an  emblem  of  joy  (Piscator),  or  deliverance  (Gesenius), . 
but  of  outward  and  inward  illumination.     Ivnobel  understands  by  the  people 
the   exile  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  by  the  land  of  the  shadow  of  death  Assyria 
as  the  place  of  their  capti^-ity, 

2.  The  Prophet  now,  by  a  sudden  apostrophe,  addresses  God  himself, . 
who,  by  bestowing  on  the  Galileans  this  great  light,  would  not  only  honour 
them,  but  atford  occasion  of  great  joy  to  all  the  true  Israel,  including  those 
who  should  be  gathered  from  the  gentiles.     Thou  hast  enlarged  the  nation 
(i.  e.  Israel  in  general),  thou  hast  increased  its  joy  (literally,  to  it  thou  hast 
increased  the  joy)  :  they  rejoice  hefore  thee  like  the  joy  in  harvest,  as  men 
rejoice  when  they  divide  the  spoil.     Luther  and  Umbreit  explain — ^13  to* 
mean  the  Gentiles,  and  regard  this  not  as  a  description  of  deliverance  but 
of  oppression.      Hitzig  supposes   ^15  to   mean  the  returning  exiles.     All-    - 
other  writers  seem  to  be  agreed  that  it  means  the  Israelites  in  general.  • 
The  increase   of  the  nation  has  been   variously  explained  to  mean  the  • 
gathering  of  a  great  army  by  the  king  of  Assyria,  to  whom  the  verse  is    "" 
then  addressed  (Grotius) — or  the  crowding  of  the  Jews  into  Jerusalem, 
during  Sennacherib's  invasion  (Aben  Ezra) — or  an  increase  in  the  num-. 
ber  of  the  Israelites  while  in  captivity  (Hitzig) — or  the  general  ditlusion  of 
the  Jewish  race  after  the  exile  (Vitringa).     It  really  means  the  increase  of. 
the  people  in  their  own  land,  not  a  mere  growth  of  population  (Gesenius), 
but  an  increase  of  the  true  Israel  by  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  (Hengsten- 
berg,  Christol.  vol.  i.,  part  2,  p.  110).     SjTiimachus  separates  npnjn  from- 
what  follows  {s^Xriduvag  rb  ii)iiog  o  ovx,  s/j.iyd,7^vvag),  in  which  he  is  followed 
by  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Mam-er.     But  this  requires  a  change  in  the  punc-  . 
tuation  and  diAdsion  of  the  words  to  render  it  grammatical.    De  Dieu  takes 
N?  as  equivalent  to  i^^H — "  hast  thou  not  increased  the  joy  ?  " — which  is- 
forced  and  arbitrary.      Another  construction   is,  thou  hast  increased  the, 
nation  of  the  Jews,  but  thoic  hast  not  increased  the  joy  of  theu*  enemies 
(Jarchi),  or  of  the  Gentiles  (Luther).     But  this  assumes  two  diflterent  sub-  - 
jects  in  the  two  successive  clauses.  Hitzig  and  Hengstenberg  thus  construe 
it — thou  -dost  increase  the  nation  whose  joy  thou  hast  not  heretofore  in- 
creased.    But  this  requires  a  relative  to  be  supplied,  and  arbitrarily  refers 
the  verbs  to  diflerent  times.      If  the  textual  reading  (i<?)  be  retained,  as  . 
it  is  by  Hengstenberg,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Henderson,  Umbreit,  and  the  older 
wi-iters,  the  best  construction  is  that  given_by^alvin   and  Cocceius — thou  . 
hast  increased  the  natiori  but  thou  hast  not  increased  the  joy  as  thou  art  now  i  / 
about  to  do.    It  is  best,  however,  to  read  ^  instead  of  ^7,  with  the  Masora,- 
several  ancient  versions,  Gesenius,  De  Wette,  and  Knobel,  or  to  regard 
the  latter  as  a  mere  orthographical  variation  for  the  former  (Ewald  ad  loc. 
and  Heb.  Gr,-§  555).     The  same  emendation  is  required  by  the  context  in 
several  other  places  {e.g.  chap.  xlix.  5,  Ixiii.  9).  Junius  and  Tremellius  sup- 
pose the  former  joy  or  prosperity  of  Israel,  acquired  by  toil  and  bloodshed, 
as  in  a  harvest  or  a  battle,  to  be  here  contrasted  with  the  joy  which  the 
Messiah  would  impart.      Knobel  supplies  a  relative  before  ^TXOV,  gives 
IB^ND  the  sense  of  uhen,  and  supposes  the  joy  of  actual  \dctory  to  be  com- 
pared with  that  of  harvest — thou  hast  increased  the  joy  wherewith  they 
rejoice  hefore  thee,  like  the  joy  of  harvest,  when  they  rejoice  in  their  dividing 
the  spoil.     But  this  makes  the  structure  of  the  sentence  artificial  and  com- 
plex.    Rejoicing  hefore  God  Calvin  explains  to  mean  rejoicing  with  a  real-'^ 
or  a  reasonable  joy ;  Piscator  with  a  secret  spiritual  joy,  not  before  man 


200  ISAIAH  IX.  [Ver.  3. 

but  God  ;  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Hitzig,  Hengstenborg,  and  Ewald,  more  cor- 
.  rectly,  as  an  act  of  religious  worship,  either  simply  in  allusion  to  the 
rejoicing  of  the  people  before  God  at  the  tabernacle  or  temple  under  the 
law  of  Moses  (Deut.  xii.  7,  xiv.  26),  or  in  reference  to  an  actual  perfonn- 
ance  of  that  duty.  The  Targum  explains  harvest  as  a  metaphor  for  war  or 
battle,  which  destroys  the  Prophet's  beautiful  comparison  of  the  joy  of 
victory,  or  joy  in  general,  to  that  which  accompanies  the  harvest  in  all 
countries,  and  especially  in  the  East  (Ps.  iv.  8,  cxxvi.  6). — Kimchi  makes 
the  Assyrians  the  subject  of  r?''i'',  Knobel  the  Israelites  themselves,  but  it 
is  better  to  take  it  indefinitely  or  to  supply  men  as  in  the  English  Version. 
TVpa  is  not  a  false  reading  for  1"'Vp  or  1''^*pn,  which  we  find  in  a  few  manu- 
Bcripts  (Lowth),  but  another  instance  of  tfie  idiomatic  use  of  the  construct 
foim  before  a  preposition,  as  in  the  preceding  verse  (P^<2  ''2^'').  See 
Gesenius,  §  114,  1  ;  Ewald,  §  510.  To  the  promise  here  given  there  is 
probabl}^  allusion  in  the  language  of  the  angel  who  announced  the  birth  of 
Jesus  to  the  shepherds  (Luke  ii.  10) :  Behold,  I  bring  you  fjood  tidings  of 
great  joy,  wJiich  shall  be  to  all  (he  ijeople  (>Tavr/  vQ  }.a'Jj),  i.e.  to  the  whole 
nation,  all  the  Israel  of  God 

3.  This  verse  assigns  the  oason  or  occasion  of  the  promised  joy.  They 
shall  rejoice  before  thee,  thai  'or  because)  the  yoke  of  his  burden  (his  bur- 
densome yoke),  and  the  rod  Oj  his  shoulder  (or  back),  and  the  staff  of  the 
one  driving  him  (his  task-maste.  \  slave-driver)  thou  hast  broken  like  the  day 
(as  in  the  day)  of  Midian,  as  Giueon  routed  Midian,  i.e.  suddenly,  totally, 
and  by  special  aid  from  heaven.  This  promise  was  not  fulfilled  in  the  de- 
liverance of  the  Jews  from  Babylon  (Calvin),  which  bore  no  resemblance  to 
the  victory  of  Gideon ;  nor  in  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army 
(Grotius),  the  benefits  of  which  events  were  only  temporary ;  nor  in  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  to  which  there  is  no 
allusion  in  the  context ;  but  in  the  glorious  deliverance  of  the  Galileans 
(the  first  converts  to  Christianity),  and  of  all  who  with  them  made  up  the 
true  Israel,  from  the  heavy  burden  of  the  covenant  of  works,  the  galling 
yoke  of  the  Mosaic  law,  the  service  of  the  devil,  and  the  bondage  of  cor- 
ruption. Outward  deliverance  is  only  promised,  so  far  as  it  accompanied 
spiritual  change  or  was  included  in  it.  Cocceius  refines  too  much  when  he 
-distinguishes  between  the  rod  and  stafl",  as  denoting  the  civil  and  the  cere- 
monial law.  The  meaning,  on  the  other  hand,  is  lowered  by  restricting  the 
prophetic  figures  to  Sennacherib's  siege  of  Jerusalem  (Grotius),  or  the  tri- 
bute paid  to  Assyria  by  Hezekiah  (Jarchi)  or  Ahaz  (Gesenius),  or  to  mere 
dependence  on  a  foreign  power  (Hitzig).  The  application  of  the  tei-ms  by 
J.  D,  Michaelis  to  the  persecution  of  the  Galileans  or  first  Christians  by 
the  Jews,  seems  altogether  fiinciful.  Barnes  refers  the  pronoun  in  his  bur- 
den to  the  oppressor  [lohich  he  made  you  bear),  and  Forerius  in  like  manner 
explains  the  rod  of  his  shoulder  to  mean  the  rod  carried  on  the  tyrant's 
.shoulder.  But  the  suffix  in  both  cases  relates  not  to  the  oppressor  but  to 
•  the  oppressed,  and  D2ti*  includes  not  merely  the  shoulders  but  the  space 
between  them,  the  upper  part  of  the  back.  Forerius  also  refers  ^  to  the 
oppressor — *'  thou  hast  broken  the  rod  of  the  oppressor  with  himself." 
Munster  refers  it  to  the  rod — "  with  which  he  oppressed  them."  Maurer 
refers  it  correctly  to  the  sufferer,  but  gives  the  preposition  the  distinct 
sense  of  against  or  7//707?,  because  the  tyrant  presses  or  rushes  upon  his 
victim.  It  is  no  doubt,  as  Gesenius  and  Ewald  hold,  a  mere  connective,  taken 
here  by  '^1}  as  it  is  elsewhere  by  13y  (Exod.  i.  14,  Lev.  xxv.  39).  The 
day  of  any  one  in  Hebrew  often  means  the  day  in  which  something  memor- 


Ver.  4.]  ISAIAH  IX.  -201 

able  happens  to  him,  or  is  done  by  him  [vide  supra,  chap.  ii.  12),  and  in 
Ai-abic  is  absolutely  used  for  a  day  of  battle.     The  rout  of  the  Midianites, 
recorded  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  Judges,  is  here  referred  to,  not  because 
it  took  place  in  a  single  night,  like  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army 
(Jarchi) — nor  because  the  foes  of  Israel,  like  those  of  the  Church,  destroyed 
each  other  (Cocceius) — nor  because  the  truth,  which  overcomes  the  world, . 
is  in  earthen  vessels,  like  the  lamps  of  Gideon  (Yitringa) — nor  because  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel  may  be  likened  to  the  blowing  of  trumpets  (Dutch 
annotations)  —  but  because  it  was  a  wonderful  display  of  divine  power,  with- 
out the  use  of  any  adequate  hu-  an  means ;  and  also,   as  suggested  by' 
Herder  (Heb.  Poes.  vol.  ii.  p.  49(      because  it  took  place  in  the  same  part^ 
of  the  country  which  this  prophi    y  refers  to.      Jezreel,  where  the  battle  ■ 
was  fought  (Judges  vi.  33),  was   in  the  territory  of  Manasseh,  to  w  ich 
tribe  Gideon  himself  belonged  (  jdges  vi.  15) ;  but  he  was  aided  by  t  e 
neighbouring  tribes  of  Asher,  Zebulon,  and  Naphtali  (Judges  vi.  35). — 
Junius,  in  order  to  sustain  his  interpretation  of  the  second  verse,  continues 
the  construction  into  this,  and  gives  to  ^  the  sense  of  vhen — "they  re-'' 
joiced  before  thee,  &c.,  when  (whenever)  Xiiou  didst  break  their  yoke,"  &c. 
— i.  e.  in  every  case  of  former  deliverance.     (See  also  the  margin  of  the 
English  Version.)     The  Septuagint  and  Targum  supply  a  verb  in  the  first  . 
clause  (a^Tj'gjj-a/,  JT'iys*),  which  is  unnecessary,  as  the  nouns  in  that  clause 
are  governed  by  the  verb  in  the  last  part  of  the  sentence.     That  verb  does 
not  mean  to  scatter  (Septuagint),  or  to  conquer  (Vulgate),  or  to  frighten  . 
(Cocceius),  but  to  break,  to  break  off,  or  to  break  in  pieces.      Vitringa 
takes  n*^D  as  a  synonymte  of  Htpb  a  yoke  ;  but  it  no  doubt  denotes  here,  as 
in  every  other  case,  a  staff  or  rod.  Gesenins,  in  his  Commentary,  supposes 
an  ellipsis  of  the  proposition  before  DV  ;  but,  in  the  last  edition   of  his 
grammar,  he  agrees  with  Maurer  in  supposing  the  noun  itself  to  be  used 
adverbially  or  absolutel}'  in  answer  to  the  question  ivhen  ?     The  absolute 
form  of  v3D  is  written  by  Gesenius  "p^D,  by  Ewald  ?3P.     The  Daghesh  is 
euphonic,  and  the  Sheva  anomalous. 

4.  The  destruction  of  the  oppressing  power  shall  be  followed  by  profound  . 
and  universal  peace.  To  express  this  idea,  the  Prophet  describes  the 
equipments  of  the  soldier  as  consumed  with  fire.  For  all  the  armour  of 
the  armed  man  (or  the  man-at-arms,  who  mingles)  in  the  tumult  (pi  battle), 
and  the  garment  rolled  in  blood,  shall  he  for  hurning  (and  ior)  food  (or  fuel), 
of  fire.  In  other  words,  the  usual  accompaniments  of  battle  shall  be. 
utterly  destroyed,  and  by  implication,  war  itself  shall  cease.  There  is  no 
need  of  supposing,  with  Vitringa,  Lowth,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Hender- 
son, an  allusion  to  the  ancient  custom  of  burning  the  armour  and  equip- 
ments of  the  slain  upon  the  field  of  battle  as  an  act  of  triumph.  It  is  not 
the  weapons  of  the  enemy  alone,  but  all  weapons  of  war,  that  are  to  be 
consumed ;  not  merely  because  they  have  been  used  for  a  bad  purpose, 
but  because  they  are  hereafter  to  be  useless.  It  is  not  so  much  a  pro- 
phecy of  conquest  as  of  peace ;  a  peace,  however,  which  is  not  to  be  ex- 
pected till  the  enemies  of  God  are  overcome ;  and  therefore  the  prediction 
may  be  said  to  include  both  events,  the  final  overthrow  of  all  opposing 
powers  and  the  subsequent  prevalence  of  universal  peace.  This  last  is 
uniformly  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  characteristic  of  Messiah's  reign,  both 
internal  and  external,  in  society  at  large  and  in  the  hearts  of  his  people. 
With  respect  -to  the  latter,  the  prediction  has  been  verified  with  more  or 
less  distinctness,  in  every  case  of  true  conversion.  With  respect  to  the 
former,  its  fulfilment  is  inchoate,  but  will  one  day  be  complete,  when  the 


202  ISAIAH  JX.  [Yer.  4. 

lion  and  the  Iamb  shall  lie  down  together,  and  He  who  is  the  Prince  of 
peace  shall  have  dominion  from  sea  to  sea,  and  from  the  river  to  the  ends 
of  the  earth.  An  allusion  to  this  promise  and  its  final  consummation  may 
be  found  in  the  words  of  the  heavenly  host  who  celebrated  the  Saviour's 
-birth  (Luke  ii.  14),  Glory  to  God  in  the  hiijhest,  and  on  earth  peace,  good 
u-ill  to  men.  According  to  Jarchi,  Ivimchi,  Calvin,  and  Grotius,  this  verse 
contains  two  distinct  propositions,  one  relating  to  the  day  of  Midian  or  to 
wars  in  general,  and  the  other  to  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  anny  or 
the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  from  exile.  The  sense  would  then  be  that 
while  other  battles  ai*e  accompanied  with  noise  and  bloodshed,  this  shall 
be  with  burning  and  fuel  of  fire.  But  this  construction,  besides  assuming 
a  change  of  subject,  of  which  there  is  no  intimation  in  the  text,  departs 
from  the  natural  and  ordinary  meaning  of  the  words.     The  jire  mentioned 

•  '  in  the  last  clause  has  been  variously  explained  as  a  poetical  description  of 
the  Ass^iian  slaughter  (Jarchi,  Kiaichi,  Aben  Ezra,  Grotius),  or  of  the 
angel  by  whom  it  was  eifected  (Abarbenel) — of  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem (Yatablus,  J.  D.  Michaelis),  or  of  the  world  (Diodati) — or  as  an 
emblem  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Forerius) — or  of  our  Sa^•iour's  zeal  for  man's 
salvation  (Gill).  It  is  mentioned  simply  as  a  powerful  consuming  agent, 
TO  express  the  abolition  of  the  implements  of  war,  and,  as  a  necessary  con- 
sequence, of  war  itself.  The  verse,  then,  is  not  a  mere  description  of 
Gideon's  victory  (Junius) — nor  a  comparison  between  that  or  any  other 
battle  and  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army  (Grotius) — nor  a  prediction 
of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  in  spite  of  an  obstinate  and  bloody  defence  (J.  D. 
Michaelis) — but  a  prophecy  of  changes  to  take  place  when  the  yreat  liyht 
and  deliverer  of  the  nation  should  appear.  The  ''3  at  the  beginning  is 
translated  ivhen  by  Junius  and  Tremellius  and  in  the  margin  of  the  English 
Bible  ;  but  it  really  means  for,  and  assigns  a  second  reason  for  the  joy 
predicted  in  ver.  2.     1^'P,  which  occurs  nowhere  else,  is  taken  in  the  sense 

-  of  war  or  battle,  by  DS^id  Kimchi,  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Grotius ;  in  that 
..of  a  militaiy  greave  or  sandal,  boot  or  shoe,  by  Joseph  lumchi,  Rosen- 
miiller,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Hengstenberg,  Hcndew^erk,  Henderson,  and 
Ewald;  and  in  that  of  aimour  or  equipment  in  general,  by  Hitzig,  De 
Wette,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel.  i^D  is  a  participle  formed  from  this  noun, 
and  signifies  a  person  thus  equipped.     The  whole  phrase  therefore  means 

\\the  armour  of  the  armed  man,  the  equipment  of  the  soldier.  The  obscurity  of 
these  terms  to  the  old  translators  is  sufficiently  apparent  from  the  6ToXr,v 
sTnav^riy/Mivrjv  of  the  Septuagint,  the  violenta  pia^datio  of  the  Vulgate,  and 
the  unintelligible  A-ersion  of  the  whole  sentence  given  in  the  Targum. 
Hoheisel  and  Rosenmiiller  understand  b}' t^'J^Ti  the  noise  or  clatter  of  the 
militarj'  shoe  or  sandal  armed  with  nails  ;  but  it  rather  means  noise  in 
general,  or  rnore  specifically,  the  shock  and  tumult  of  battle,  the  vielee. 
The  phrase  ^'IH^  qualifies  ]^0 — the  aniionr  of  him  who  mingles  aiwed  in 
the  tumult  of  battle,  and  whose  '"^^P^  or  upper  gannent  is  described  as 
rolled  in  blood,  not  merely  dyed  of^a  red  colour  (Hitzig),  but  literally 
stained  with  the  blood  of  conflict.  J.  D.  Michaelis  makes  the  first  clause, 
by  a  harsh  and  nngrammatical  construction,  mean  that  he  who  arms  himself 
arms  himself  only  to  tremble  or  to  make  to  tremble.  There  is  no  need  of 
supplying  a  verb  in  the  first  clause,  with  Calvin  (fit)  and  Grotius  (soletesse), 
much  less  two  with  Barnes.  The  nouns  in  this  clause  are  the  subjects  of 
the  verb  at  the  beginning  of  the  second,  which  agrees  grammatically  with 
the  second,  but  logically  with  both.  The  Vav  is  conversive,  and  at  the 
same  time  introduces  the  apodosis  of  the  sentence  (Gesenius,  §  152,  1,  a). 


Ver.  5.]  ISAIAH  IX.  203 

There  is  no  need  therefore  of  adopting  J.  D.  Michaeh's's  construction  of 
the  last  clause,  that  whatever  is  destined  for  the  fire  i^^  DPDKD)  iviU  cer- 
tainhj  he  burned  (r\^'\^h  nn^n). 

6.  This  verse  gives  a  further  reason  for  the  joy  of  the  people,  by  bring- 
ing into  view  the  person  who  was  to  effect  the  great  deliverance.     For  a 
child  is  born  to  iis  [or  for  us,  i.  e.  for  our  benefit) — a  son  is  given  to  us  {i.  e. 
by  Jehovah,  an  expression  frequently  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to 
Christ's  incarnation),  and  the  government  is  i.pon  his  shoidder  (as  a  burden  - 
or  a  robe  of  office) — and  his  name  is  called  Wonderful  (literally  Wonder)  — 
Counsellor — Mighty   God — Everlasting    Father — Prince    of  Peace.        The 
figure   of  a   robe   or   dress  is  preferred  by  Grotius  and  Hengstenberg, 
that  of  a  burden  hj  Gesenius,    Hitzig,    and   Knobel,  who   cites  analo- 
gous   expressions  from  Cicero   (rempublicam   universam  vestris  humeris 
sustinetis),   and   the  younger  Phny  (bene  humeris  tuis  sedet  imperium). 
When  it  is  said  that  his  name  should  be  called,  it  does  not  mean  that  he 
should  actually  bear  these  names  in  real  life,  but  merely  that  he  should 
deserve  them,  and  that  they  would  ..e  descriptive  of  his  character.     The 
verb  ^'^P''  may  agree  with  n}il_\  or  be  construed  indefinitely — he  {i.  e.  any 
one)  shall  call  his  name — which  is  equivalent  to  saj'ing  they  shall  call  his    •' 
name,  or  in  a  passive  form,  Ms  name  shall  he  called.     The  child  here  pre- 
dicted or  described  is  explained  to  be  Hezekiah,  by  Jarchi,  Kimchi,  Aben 
Ezra,  Grotius,  Heijsler,  Paulus,  Gesenius,  Hendewerk.     This  explanation  A 
is  rejected,  not  only  by  the  older  writers,  but  among  the  modern  Germans, 
by   Bauer,    Eichhorn,    Rosenm tiller,    Maurer,    Hitzig,    Ewakl,    Umbreit^ 
Knobel.     The  Vav  conversive  renders  the  futures  ''HJ^I  and  N^p*1  perfectly  . 
equivalent,  in  point  of  time,  to  the  preterites  "1?.*  and  |Ji)3 ;  so  that  if  the 
latter  refer  to  an  event  already  past,  the  former  must  refer  to  past  time  r 
too,  and  vice  versa.     The  verse  then  either  represents  Hezekiah  as  unborn,      ' 
or  as  already  invested  with  the  regal  office,  at  the  date  of  the  prediction,   I 
neither  of  which  can  be  historically  true.     The  attempt  to  escape  from  this 
dilemma,  by  referring  the  two  first  verbs  to  something  past,  and  the  two 
next  to  something  future,  is  a  direct  violation  of  the  laws  of  Hebrew  synitax. 
Besides,  the  terms  of  the  description  are  extravagant  and  false,  if  applied  a- 
to  Hezekiah.     In  what  sc   se  was  he  wonderful,  a  mighty  God,  an  everlast- 
ing Father,  a  Prince  of 'peace  f   The  modern  Jews,  in  oider  to  sustain  their 
antichristian  exegesis,  have  devised  a  new  construction  of  the  sentence, 
which  applies  all  these   epithets,  except  the   last,  to   God  himself,  as  the 
subject  of  the  verb  N"ip\     And  (he  who  is)  Wonderful,  the  Counsellor,  the   i 
mighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Father,  calls  h  is  {i.  e.  Hezekiah)  name  the  Prince  I ' 
of  2'>eace.     This  construction,  which  is   given  by  Jarchi  and  Ivimchi,   is 
supposed  by  some  to  have  been  suggested  by  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase, 
while  others  cite  the  latter  as  a  witness  in  favour  of  applying  all  the  names 
to  the  Messiah.    (See  the  opposite  statements  in  Vitringa  and  Henderson.) 
But  how  could  even  the  last  of  these  distinctive  titles  be  applied  to  Heze- 
kiah ?     Neither  actively  nor  passively  could  he  be  called,  at  least  with 
any  emphasis,  a 'Prince  of  peace.     He  wag"^*^  ■"■^"  :.gainst  others,  and  was 
himself  invaded  and  subjected  to  a  foreign  power,  from  which  he  afterwards 
revolted.     To  this  it  is  replied  by  Gesenius  and  Maurer,  that  the  Prophet 
maj'^  have  entertained  a  groundless  expectation.     But  even  this  bold  con-- 
jecture  is  of  no  avail  against  a  second  objection  of  a  difierent  kind,  viz. 
that  a  long  enumeration  of  titles  belonging  to  God  himself  is  utterly  irrelc-  • 
vant  in  speaking  of  a  name  which  should  be  borne  by  Hezekiah.    And  this 
objection  hes,  with  still  more  force,  against  Abarbeuel's  construction,  which 


204  ISAIAH  IX.  ^     [Vkr.  5. 

iucludes  even  Vrince  ff  'peace  among  Jehovah's  titles,  and  takes  lOt'  J<"l|T 
absohitt'Iy  in  the  sense  of  giving  a  name  or  making  famous.  The  hypo- 
thesis first  mentioned  is  exposed  moreover  to  the  fatal  grammatical  objec- 
tion, urged  by  Calvin  and  Cocceius,  that,  according  to  invariable  usage, 
IC^'  must  have  stood  between  the  names  of  God  and  the  name  of  Hezekiah. 
These  constructions  are  accordingly  abandoned  now,  even  by  some  who 
still  identify  the  child  with  Hezekiah.  These  assume  the  gi-ouud,  main- 
f  taiued  of  old  by  Aben  Ezra,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  epithets  which 
might  not  be  apphed  to  Hezekiah.  In  order  to  maintuin  this  ground, 
the  meaning  of  the  epithets  themselves  is  changed.  *<?S  is  cither 
made  to  mean  nothing  more  than  remarkalle,  distinfjuished  (Grotius, 
Gesenius,  Knobel),  or  is  ungrammatically  joined  with  1*^'"'^  in  the  sense  of  a 
wonderful  counsellor  (Ewald),  or  wonderfully  ivise  (Hendewerk).  XW  itself 
is  joined  with  1133  ?N,  as  meaning  a  cousulter  of  the  mit/htij  God,  a  con- 
struction which  is  equally  at  variance  with  the  Masoretic  interpunction 
and  the  usage  of  the  word  XW,  which  never  means  one  who  (iska,  but 
always  one  who  (jives  adj-ice,  and  more  especially  a  public  counsellor  or 
minister  of  state.  JTide  siqmi,  chap.  i.  26,  iii.  3).  But  some  who  admit 
this  explain  the  next  title,  "1133  ha,  to  mean  a  >tiii/hti/  hero  or  a  r/odli/ce 
hero  (Gesenius,  De  Wette,  Maurer),  although  they  grant  that  in  another 
part  of  this  same  prophecy  it  means  the  mighty  God.  ( Vide  infra,  chap. 
X.  21;  cf.  Deut.  x.  17,  Jer.  xxxii.  18).  "ly  ""^K  is  explained  to  mean  a 
father  of  spoil,  a  plunderer,  a  vicrtor  (Abarbenel,  Hitzig,  Ivnobel) — or  a  per- 
petual father,  i.  e.  benefactor  of  the  people  (Hensler,  Doederlein,  Gesenius, 
Maurer,  Hendewerk,  Ewald) — or  at  most,  the  founder  of  a  new  or  everlast- 
iny  aye  (Lowth),  or  the  father  of  a  numerous  offspring  (Grotius).  All  this 
to  discredit  or  evade  the  ob^^ous  meaning  of  the  phrase,  which  either  sig- 
nifies a  father  (or  possessor)  of  eternity,  i.  e.  an  eternal  being — or  an  author 
and  bestower  of  eternal  life.  Possibly  both  maybe  included.  The  ne- 
cessity of  such  explanations  is  sufficient  to  condemn  the  exegetical  hypo- 
thesis involving  it,  and  shews  that  this  hypothesis  has  only  been  adopted 
to  avoid  the  natural  and  striking  apphcation  of  the  words  to  Jesus  Christ, 
as  the  promised  child,  emphatically  born  for  us  and  yiven  to  us,  as  the  Son 
of  God  and  the  Son  of  man,  as  being  ivonderful  in  his  person,  works, 
and  sufferings — a  counsellor,  prophet,  or  authoritative  teacher  of  the  truth, 
a  wise  administrator  of  the  church,  and  confidential  adviser  of  the  indi- 
vidual believer — a  real  man,  and  yet  the  iniyhty  God — eternal  in  his  own 
existence,  and  the  yirer  of  eternal  life  to  others — the  great  peace-maker 
(between  God  and  man,  between  Jew  and  Gentile,  the  umpire  between 
nations,  the  abolisher  of  war,  and  the  giver  of  internal  peace  to  all  who 
heiuy  justified  hy  faith  have  peace  uilh  (rod  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
(Hom.  V.  1).  The  doctrine  that  this  pre  phecy  relates  to  the  Messiah,  was 
not  disputed  even  by  the  Jews,  until  the  virulence  of  antichristian  con- 
troversy drove  them  from  the  ground  which  their  own  progenitors  had 
stedfastly  maintained.  In  this  departure  from  the  truth  they  have  been 
iollowed  by  some  leai-ned  writers  who  are  Christians  only  in  the  name, 
and  to  whom  may  be  applied,  with  little  alteration,  what  one  of  them 
(Gesenius)  has  said  with  respect  to  the  ancient  versions  of  this  very  text, 
viz.  that  the  general  meaning  put  upon  it  may  be  viewed  as  the  criterion 
of  a  Christian  and  an  antichristian  writer.  It  has  been  already  mentioned 
that  some  writers  even  of  this  class  have  been  compelled  to  abandon  the 
application  of  this  text  to  Hezekiah,  and  that  one  of  the  latest  and  most 
eminent  interpreters  by  whom  it  is  maintained,  admits  that  there  may  be 


Yee.  G.  I  ISAIAH  IX.  205 

some  allusion  to  the  nascent  doctrine  of  a  personal  Messiah.  These  con- 
cessions, partial  and  reluctant  as  they  are,  serve  to  strengthen  the  most 
ancient  and  most  natural  interpretation  of  this  signal  proj^hecy. 

6.  The  reign  of  this  king  shall  be  progressive  and  perpetual,  because 
founded  in  justice  and  secured  by  the  distinguishing  favour  of  Jehovah. 
To  the  increase  of  the  government  (or  power)  and  to  the  jieace  (or  pro- 
sperity of  this  reign)  there  shall  he  no  end,  upon  tJic  throne  of  David  and 
upon  his  kingdom,  to  establish  it  and  to  confirm  it,  in  justice  and  in 
o-ighteousness  from  henceforth  and  for  ever.  The  zeal  of  Jehovah  of  hosts 
shall  do  this.  According  to  Luther,  Cocceius,  Castalio,  Gesenius,  Maurer, 
Hitzig,  De  Wette,  Ewald,  the  preposition  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  con- 
nects it  with  what  goes  before.  He  is  born,  or  called  by  these  names,  for 
the  increase  of  poiver  and  for  'prosperity  toithout  end.  To  this  it  may  be 
objected,  first,  that  the  means  and  the  end  thus  stated  are  incongruous,  and 
then  that  P^^,  according  to  usage,  is  not  a  mere  particle  of  negation,  but  in-' 
eludes  the  substantive  verb.  Rosenmiiller,  Hengstenberg,  Umbreit,  and 
Ivnobel,  retain  the  old  and  common  construction,  which  sujiposes  a  new 
sentence  to  begin  here  and  connects  the  preposition  with  Avhat  follows.  The 
government  or  power  thus  to  be  enlarged  is  of  course  that  of  the  child,  who 
is  described  as  born  and  given  in  the  foregoing  verse.  A  striking  parallel 
is  furnished  by  the  prophecy  in  Mieah  v.  3.  There,  as  here,  a  king  is 
promised  who  should  be  the  son  of  David,  and  should  reign  over  all  the 
earth  in  peace  and  righteousness  for  ever.  It  is  there  expressed,  and  here 
implied,  that  this  king  should  re-unite  the  divided  house  of  Israel,  although 
this  is  but  a  small  part  of  the  increase  promised,  which  includes  the  calling 
of  the  gentiles  also.  Peace,  though  included  in  DvSJ',  is  not  a  full  equiva- 
lent. The  Hebrew  word  denotes  not  only  peace  as  opposed  to  war,  intestine 
strife,  or  turbulence,  but  welfare  and  prosperity  in  general  as  opposed  to 
want  and  sorrow.  The  reign  here  predicted  was  to  be  not  only  peaceful 
but  in  every  respect  prosperous.  And  this  prosperity,  like  the  reign  of 
w^hich  it  is  predicted,  is  to  have  no  limit^^ither  temjjoral  or  local.  It  is  to 
be  both  universa^^jind  eternal.  There  is  nothing  to  preclude  the  very 
widest  explanation  of  the  t>.  ms  employed.  Ewald  explains  ?y  as  meaning 
for  the  sake  of,  on  account  of ,  but  there  is  no  need  of  departing  from  the 
sense  of  on,  which  is  its  proper  one,  and  that  which  it  always  has  in  other 
cases  when  prefixed  to  the  noun  ND3.  A  verb  is  introduced  before  i<D3  bv 
by  the  Vulgate  (sedebit)  and  Gesenius  (komme),  but  without  necessity.  The 
construction  is  w^hat  the  grammarians  call  a  pregnant  one.  The  endless 
increase  of  power  and  prosperity  on  the  throne  of  David  means  of  course 
that  the  Prince,  whose  reign  was  to  be  thus  powerful  and  prosperous,  would 
be  a  descendant  of  David.  This  is  indeed  a  repetition  and  explanation  of  a 
promise  given  to  David  (2  Sam.  vii.  11-16  ;  1  Kings  viii.  25),  and  re- 
peatedly referred  to  by  him  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  1-5  ;  Ps.  ii.,  xlv.,  Ixxii.,  Ixxxix., 
exxxii.).  Hence  the  Messiah  is  not  only  called  the  Branch  or  Son  of  David 
(2  Sam.  vii.  12,  13;  Jer.  xxiii.  5,  xxxiii.  15),  but  David  himself  (Jer. 
XXX.  9 ;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  23,  24  ;  xxxvii.  24  ;  Hosea  iii.  5).  The  two  reigns 
are  identified,  not  merely  on  account  of  an  external  resemblance  or  a  typical 
relation,  but  because  the  one  was  really  a  restoration  or  continuation  of  the 
other.  Both  kings  were  heads  of  the  same  body,  the  one  a  temporal  head, 
the  other  spiritual,  the  one  temporarj-,  the  other  eternal.  The  Jewish  nation, 
as  a  spiritual  body,  is  really  continued  in  the  Christian  Church.  The  sub- 
ject of  the  prophecy  is  the  reign  of  the  Messiah  ;  the  efi"ect  predicted,  its 


il 


206  ISAIAH  IX.  [Vek.  G. 

-  stability  and  increase  ;  the  means  to  be  employed,  judgment  and  justice  ; 
the  ellicient  cause,  the  zeal  of  Jehovah.  Grotius  distinguishes  between 
judyment  auA  justice,  as  denoting  righteous  government  on  one  hand,  and 
ri'fhtcous  subjection  to  it  on  the  other.  The  justice  spoken  of  is  that  of  the 
Messiah  and  his  subjects.  All  the  acts  of  his  administration  will  be  right- 
eous, and  the  effect  of  this  upon  his  people  will  be  righteousness  on  their 
part  and  this  prevalence  of  righteousness  will  naturally  generate  the  increase 
and  stability  here  promised.  The  proposition  3  does  not  merely  mean  uith 
justice,  as  an  accompanying  circumstance,  but  hi/  it,  as  a  necessary  means. 
The  phrase  nriyp  cannot  mean  from  (hat  tvne,  as  explained  by  Junius  and 
Trcmellius  (ab  isto  tempore),  but  must  have  its  ordinary  sense, /rom  this 
time.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  Prophet,  as  in  many  other  cases, 
takes  his  stand  upon  a  point  of  future  time,  and  speaks  of  it  as  actually 
present.  Having  spoken  of  the  promised  child  in  ver.  5  as  already  horn 
and  qiven,  he  may  now  look  forward  from  its  birth  into  the  future,  and 
in  this  sense  use  the  phrase />'o)yi  henceforth.  Cocceius  understands  the 
words  more  strictly  as  meaning  "  from  the  date  of  the  prediction,"  r.nd  re- 
fen-ing  to  the  whole  series  of  events,  from  that  time  onwards,  v\ich  are 
mentioned  in  this  prophecy — the  deliverance  of  Judah — the  destruction  of 
Ephraim  and  the  overthrow  of  S\Tia — the  deportation  of  the  ten  tribes — 
Sennacherib's  invasion — Nebuchadnezzar's  conquest — the  Babylonish  exile 
— the  return — the  subsequent  vicissitudes — the  rising  of  the  great  lit/hi  upon 
Galileo — the  increase  of  the  church  by  the  accession  of  ^he  Gentiles — the 
breaking  of  the  yoke  and  staff  of  spiritual  bondage — the  'lestruction  of  the 
implements  of  war — the  establishment  and  gradual  enlargement  of  the 
IMessiah's  kingdom.  These  form  a  chain  of  great  events  succeeding  one 
another  without  any  interruption  from  the  date  of  the  prediction  to  the  end 
of  time.  ^Vhatever  be  the  tenniuKS  a  quo  intended  by  the  Prophet,  it  is 
clear  that  he  describes  the  reign  of  the  Messiah  as  an  endless  one.  The 
•word  D'?iy,  though  properly  denoting  mei*e  indefinite  duration,  and  therefore 
frequently  applied  to  terms  and  periods  of  time,  such  as  the  length  of  human 
life,  is  always  to  be  taken  in  its  largest  meaning,  unless  limited  by  some- 
thin"  in  the  context  or  the  nature  of  the  case ;  much  more  in  such  an  in- 
stance as  the  one  before  us,  where  the  context  renlly  precludes  all  limitation 
by  the  strength  of  its  expressions.  To  explain  /or  ever  here,  with  Jarchi 
and  Grotius,  as  meaning  till  the  end  of  Hezekiah's  life,  is  simply  ludicrous, 
unless  the  other  phrases,  both  in  this  verse  and  the  fifth,  are  mere  extrava- 
gant hj-perboles.  The  Masoretic  iutorpunction  requires  this  phrase  to  be 
connected  with  what  follows — "  from  henceforth  and  for  ever  the  zeal  of 
Jehovah  of  hosts  will  do  this."  It  is  so  read  by  Junius,  Cocceius,  and 
Gill ;  but  most  interpreters  suppose  it  to  qualify  what  goes  before,  and 
take  the  remaining  words  as  a  short  independent  proposition.  The 
difference  is  little  more  than  one  of  punctuation.  Both  constructions  make 
the  reign  of  the  Messiah  an  eternal  one.  The  word  HN^p  expresses  the 
complex  idea  of  strong  affection,  comprehending  or  attended  by  a  jealous 
prcforeDCC  of  one  above  another.  It  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament  to  signify 
not  only  God's  intense  love  for  his  people  but  his  jealousy  in  their  behalf, 
that  is  to  say,  his  disposition  to  protect  and  favour  them  at  the  expense  of 
others.  Sometimes,  moreover,  it  includes  the  idea  of  a  jealous  care  of  his 
own  honour,  or  a  readiness  to  take  oficnce  at  anything  opposed  to  it,  and 
a  determination  to  avenge  it  when  insulted.  There  is  nothing  in  this  idea 
of  the  divine  jealousy  incongi-uous  or  unworthy,  as  Umbreit  supposes.  The 
expressions  are  derived  from  the  dialect  of  human  passion,  but  describe 


Yer.  6.]  ISAIAH  IX.  207 

something  absolutely  riglit  on  God's  part  for  tlie  very  reasons  -which 
demonstrate  its  absurdity  and  wickedness  on  man's.  These  two  ideas  of 
God's  jealous  partiality  for  his  own  people,  and  his  jealous  sensibiUty  re-  - 
specting  his  own  honour,  are  promiscuously  blended  in  the  usage  of  the  word, 
and  are  perhaps  both  included  in  the  case  before  us.  Both  for  his  own  sake 
and  his  people's,  he  would  bring  these  events  to  jiass.  Or  rather  the  two 
motives  are  identical,  that  is  to  say,  the  one  includes  the  other.  The  wel- 
fare of  the  church  is  only  to  be  sought  so  far  as  it  promotes  God's  glory, 
and  a  zeal  which  makes  the  glory  of  the  church  an  object  to  be  aimed  at 
for  its  own  sake,  cannot  be  a  zeal  for  God,  or  is  at  best  a  zeal  for  God, 
but  not  accordinff  to  knowledge.  The  mention  of  God's  jealousy  or  zeal 
as  the  procuring  cause  of  this  result  affords  a  sure  foundation  forJ 
the  hopes  of  all  believers.  His  zeal  is  not  a  passion,  but  a  principle  of  <• 
powerful  and  certain  operation.  The  astonishing  effects  produced  by 
feeble  means  in  the  promotion,  preservation,  and  extension  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  can  only  be  explained  upon  the  principle  that  the  zeal  of  the 
Lord  6i  hosts  effected  it.  The  reign  here  described  cannot  be  that  of  y. 
Hezekial].  which  was  confined  to  Judah,  and  was  neither  peaceful,  nor  pro-  " 
gressive,  nor  perpetual.  It  cannot  be  the  joint  reign  of  himself  and  his 
successors  ;  for  the  line  was  broken  at  the  Babylonish  exile.  It  cannot  be 
the  reign  of  the  Maccabees  or  Hasmonean  princes,  for  these  were  not  the 
sons  of  David  but  of  Levi.  The  prediction,  if  fulfilled  at  all,  could  only  be 
fulfilled  in  a  reign  which,  after  it  began,  was  never  interrupted,  and  has 
ever  since  been  growing  in  extent  and  power.  Is  not  this  the  reign  of 
Christ  ?  Does  it  not  answer  all  the  requisite  conditions  ?  The  evangelists 
take  pains  to  prove  by  formal  genealogies  his  lineal  descent  from  David,  and 
his  reign,  unlike  all  others,  still  continues  and  is  constantly  enlarging. 
Heudewerk  and  other  modern  German  writers  have' objected  that  this  pro- 
j)hecy  is  not  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament.  But  we  have  seen 
already,  that  the  first  verse  of  the  chapter  and  the  one  before  it  are  inter- 
preted by  Matthew  as  a  prophecy  of  Christ's  appearing  as  a  public  teacher 
first  in  Galilee  ;  and  no  one  has  denied  that  this  is  part  of  the  same  context. 
Nor  is  this  all.  The  expressions  of  the  verse  before  us  were  applied  to 
Christ,  before  his  birth,  by  Gabriel,  when  he  said  to  Mary  (Luke  i.  32-34), 
He  shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Highest ;  and  the  Lord 
God  shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of  his  father  David,  and  he  shall  reign 
over  the  house  of  Jacob  for  ever  ;  and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end. 
The  historical  allusions  in  these  words  shew  clearly  that  the  person  spoken 
of  was  one  expected,  or^in  other  words  a  subject  of  prophecy ;  and  though 
the  terms  are  not  precisely  those  used  by  Isaiah,  they  agi-ee  with  them 
more  closely  than  with  any  other  passage.  Indeed,  the  variations  may  be 
perfectly  accounted  for,  upon  the  supposition  that  the  angel's  message  was 
intended  to  describe  the  birth  of  Christ  as  a  fulfilment,  not  of  this  predic- 
tion only,  but  of  several  others  also  which  are  parallel  with  this,  and  that 
the  language  was  so  framed  as  to  suggest  them  all,  but  none  of  them  so 
prominently  as  the  one  before  us  and  the  earlier  promise  upon  which  it  was 
founded.  (Compare  2  Sam.  vii.  11,  12  ;  Dan.  vii.  14,  27 ;  Micah  iv.  7, 
&c.).  The  objection  that  Christ's  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,  and  that 
the  mention  of  the  throne  of  David  shews  that  a  temporal  monarchy  was 
meant,  proceeds  upon  the  supposition  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  figura- 
tive language,  or  at  least  that  it  is  never  used  in  prophecy.  The  objection 
of  the  Jews,  that  wars  have  not  ceased  since  Christ  came,  lies  with  still 
greater  force  against  their  application  of  the  text  to  Hezekiah.     It  is  founded 


208  ISAIAH  I  A'.  [Ver.  G. 

luorcuN  tr  on  ii  misconception  of  the  promise,  which  was  not  maJe  to  the 
jl  world  but  to  the  church,  and  not  oven  to  that,  as  something  to  be  realized 
at  once,  but  by  a  gradual  process  of  pacification.  The  reference  to  Christ 
'  is  not  a  mere  typical  and  secondary  one,  but  primary  and  positive.  Some 
who  refer  this  whole  prediction,  in  its  proper  sense,  to  Hezekiah,  at  the 
same  time  grant  that  it  has  a  higher  reference  to  Christ.  Why  then  assume 
a  lower  sense  without  necessity  or  wan-ant  ?  The  violence  thus  done  to 
the  expressions  of  the  text  will  be  sufficiently  evinced  by  stating  that  ac- 
cording to  this  view  of  the  matter,  as  exhibited  by  Grotius,  the  increase 
here  promised  means  continuance  for  nine  and  twenty  years  {vmUipUcahitur 
ejus  imjjerium,  id  est,  durabit  per  annos  XXIX.)— //w?2  hena/orth  and  for 
ever  is  from  Hezekiah's  birth  until  his  death  (a  modo  et  usque  in  sempiteriium, 
ab  initio  ad  tinem  vitaj) — and  when  the  Prophet  says  the  zeal  of  God  shall 
do  this,  M-luit  he  means  is  that  his  zeal  will  lead  him  to  bestow  upon  his 
people  such  a  prince  as  Hezekiah  {zeJus  Domini  exercituum  faciei  hoc,  id 
est,  ardens  amor  Dei  erga  pios,  qui  insunt  populo,  dabit  nobis  ac  servabit 
tarn  bonum  principem).  This  forced  attenuation  of  the  Prophet's  meaning 
micht  be  natural  enough  in  the  rabbinical  expositors,  whose  only  aim  was 
to  avoid  the  application  of  the  prophecy  to  Christ ;  but  it  was  utterly  un- 
worthy of  a  man  like  Grotins,  who  had  nothing  to  gain  by  it,  and  who  after 
all  admits  the  very  thing  which  he  appears  to  be  denying,  but  admits  it  in 
the  questionable  shape  of  a  twofold  fulfilment  and  a  double  sense,  by  which 
proceeding  he  gratuitously  multiplies  the  very  difficulties  which  interpreta- 
•  tion  is  intended  to  remove.  Upon  the  whole,  it  may  be  said  with  truth  that 
•'  there  is  no  alleged  prophecy  of  Chiist,  for  which  it  seems  so  difficult  with 
''  any  plausibility  to  find  another  subject ;  and  until  that  is  done  which  all  the 
Rabbins  and  a  Grotins  could  not  do,  we  may  repose  upon  the  old  evangeli- 
cal interpretation  as  undoubtedly  the  true  one. — In  nearly  all  editions  and 
.  manuscripts,  the  first  letter  of  the  word  n3")D  presents  the  final  form^  an 
,  orthographical  anomaly  mentioned  in  the  Talmud,  and  perhaps  very  ancient, 
but  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  relic  of  Isaiah's  autograph,  and  therefore  involv- 
~-  ing  some  mysterious  meaning.  By  different  Jewish  writers  it  has  been 
-  explained  as  an  allusion  to  the  recession  of  the  shadow  Qn  the  dial — to  the 
enclosing  of  Jerusalem  w  ith  walls  again  after  the  captivity — to  the  captivity 
itself,  as  an  enclosure — to  the  stability  of  Messiah's  kingdom,  as  the  open 
"O  is  said  to  have  the  opposite  meaning  in  Neh.  ii.  13.  Some  Christian 
_  writers  have  followed  this  rabbinical  example  by  suggesting  what  may  pos- 
sibly have  been  intended  by  the  unusual  orthography,  supposing  it  to  bo 
both  nncient  and  intentional — r. /;.  the  exclusion  of  the  unbelieving  Jews 
from  the  kingdom  of  Christ — the  secret  inward  progress  of  that  kingdom 
among  men — the  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary — the  concealment  of  the  time 
when  the  prediction  should  be  verified — the  spread  of  the  gospel  to  the  four 
corners  of  the  world — the  birth  of  Christ  six  hundred  years  (of  which  D  is 
the  cipher)  after  the  prediction — the  opening  to  the  Gentiles  of  the  church 
which  had  been  previously  shut  up  and  restricted  to  the  Jews — the  perfec- 
tion of  Christ's  kingdom,  as  denoted  by  the  perfect  or  square  form — and  its 
mystical  nature — as  denoted  by  the  unusual  form  of  the  letter.  It  is  sug- 
gested by  Cocceius,  that  the  unusual  mode  of  writing  may  have  been  in- 
tended to  attract  attention  to  this  signal  prophecy.  But  why  should  it  have 
been  resorted  to  in  this  one  passage,  and  in  this  particular  part  of  it  ? 
Hengstenberg,  liitzig,  Heudewerk,  and  Henderson  regard  it  as  an  acciden- 
tal anomaly,  occasioned  by  mistake  and  preserved  by  superstition  ;  the  only 
objection  to  which  is  the  extreme  care  of  the  Jews  as  to  all  points  of  ortho- 


VfiR.  7.]  ISAIAH  IX.  209 

graphy,  and  the  improbability  of  such  an  error,  if  it  could  occur,  becoming 
general.  Some  have  accordingly  supposed  the  singularity  to  be  connected, 
in  its  origin,  with  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Hiller  (de  Arcane 
Chethib  et  Keri)  conjectures  that  the  final  mem  was  meant  to  shew  that 
the  first  two  letters  of  n3"l07,  according  to  some  ancient  reading,  ought  to 
be  omitted,  and  the  word  read  simply  n2"l.  Gesenius,  Maurer,  and  Ivnobel 
adopt  the  supposition  of  Elias  Levita,  that  it  indicates  a  different  division 
of  the  words,  which  is  also  noticed  in  the  Masora,  viz.,  mi^'Dn  n2"i  DP — to  ' 
them  the  dominion  shall  be  great  or  multiplied.  There  is,  however,  no  ex- 
ample of  the  abbreviation  a?  for  QD<,  corresponding  to  the  common  one  of 
03  for  nr}2. 

7.  Having  repeatedly  interchanged  the  three  great  subjects  of  this  pro- 
phecy— the  deliverance  of  Judah  from  the  power  of  SjTia  and  Israel — its  ■ 
subsequent  punishment  by  means  of  the  Ass^Tians — and  the  reign  of  the 
Messiah,  for  whose  sake  the  kingdom  was  to  be  preserved — the  Prophet , 
passes  here  abruptly  from  the  last  to  the  first,  and  again  predicts  the  pun- 
ishment of  Ephraim.  He  reverts  to  this  event,  which  had  already  been 
repeatedly  foretold,  for  the  purpose  of  declaring  that  the  blows  would  be 
repeated  as  often  and  as  long  as  might  be  needed  for  the  absolute  fulfiment 
of  God's  threatenings.  He  begins  by  shewing  that  Israel  had  already  been 
sufficiently  forewarned.  The  Lord  sent  a  icord  into  Jacob,  and  it  came  down 
into  Israel.  Cahin  supposes  an  antitheses  between  the  clauses,  and  ex- 
jjlains  the  verse  to  mean  that  what  had  been  predicted  as  to  Israel  should" 
hefidjilled  in  Israel ;  but  there  is  no  such  usage  of  ''S3.  Grotius  adopts  the 
same  construction,  with  the  additional  en-or  of  applying  Jacob  to  the  whole 
race,  and  Israel  to  the  ten  tribes,  which  is  altogether  arbitrary.  Equally 
groundless  is  the  supposition  that  Jacob  and  Israel  denote  the  rival  king- 
doms. The  two  names  of  the  patriarch  are  here  used  as  equivalents,  denot-' 
ing  his  descendants,  and  especially  the  larger  part,  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes,  to  which  the  national  name  Israel  is  wont  to  be  distinctively  applied. 
Another  false  antithesis  is  that  between  the  verbs,  referring  one  to  past  time  • 
and  the  other  to  the  future.  This  is  adopted  even  by  Ewald  ;  but  accord- 
ing to  the  usage  of  the  language,  Vav  is  eonversive  of  the  preterite  only  when 
preceded  by  a  future,  expressed  or  implied.  (See  Nordheimer,  §  219,  1.) 
The  LXX.  seem  to  have  read  ~i??  a  pestilence, 'instead  of  I??  a  word.  Castalio 
gives  it  here  the  sense  of  thing  (rem  mittet),  Vitringa  that  of  threatening, 
which  is  not  expressed  by  this  word,  but  suggested  by  the  context.  The 
true  sense  is  that  of  a  dictum  or  authoritative  declaration,  not  that  which 
follows,  nor  that  which  goes  before,  but  the  whole  series  of  threatenings  and 
warnings  which  God  has  sent  by  all  the  prophets  and  by  all  the  seers  (2  Kings 
xvii.  13),  perhaps  with  special  reference  to  that  respecting  Pekah  in  the 
seventh  chapter.  The  sending  of  the  word  here  mentioned  had  either  actually 
taken  place,  or  was  regarded  by  the  Prophet  in  his  vision  as  already  past. 
The  preposition  does  not  mean  against,  or  simply  to,  but  into,  as  usual,  after  . 
verbs  of  motion.  The  Septuagint  renders  723  came,  the  Targum  teas  heard. 
In  Josh.  xxi.  45,  and  1  Kings  viii.  5C,  this  same  verb  is  used  with  1^'^  word 
in  the  sense  of  fading,  or  not  coming  to  pass.  Adopting  this  sense  here, 
the  meaning  of  the  verse  would  be,  that  God  had  sent  a  word  of  warning, 
but  that  it  had  not  yet  been  fulfilled.  But  in  both  the  places  cited,  the , 
idea  expressed  is  not  that  of  mere  delay,  but  of  entire  failure,  implying  the 
falsity  of  the  prediction.     To  give  it  the  contrary  sense  of  coming  to  pass 

VOL.  I.  O 


210  ISAIAH  IX.  [Veh.  8. 

or  taking  effect,  as  Jarchi  and  Calvin  do,  is  altogether  arbitraiy.     The  great 
majority  of  writers  take  it  in  its  usual  and  proper  sense  of  falling  or  de- 

•  sccndiug.  There  is  no  need,  however,  of  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  fall- 
ing of  un  arrow,  or  of  seed  into  the  earth,  or  of  rain  upon  it.    A  more  obvious 

(  and  natural  associatiun  would  be  that  of  a  thunderbolt,  suggested  by  Gill 
and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  reference  to  the  threatening  nature  of  the  revelation; 
especially  as  3  ?D3  is  elsewhere  used  in  the  sense  of /ailing  upon,  i.e.  attack- 

.  ing  (Joshua  xi.  7).  The  essential  import  of  the  phrase  is  to  describe  the  word 
as  coming  down  from  God  in  heaven  (compare  Daniel  iv.  28),  or,  as  Hcnde- 
werk  supposes,  from  Jerusalem,  his  earthly  residence,  motion  fi-om  which 
is  always  spoken  of  as  downward  in  the  Hebrew  idiom.  The  word  which 
God  had  uttered  against  Israel  had  reached  them  as  a  message  from  him, 
as  a  revelation,  so  that  there  could  be  no  doubt  as  to  its  authority  and 
genuineness.  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  render  the  verbs  in  the  present  tense, 
and  regard  this  verse  as  a  title  or  inscription  of  the  following  prophecy,  be- 
cause it  makes  the  strophe  and  antistrophe  unequal.  But  if  this  proves  any 
thing,  it  is  that  the  strophical  arrangement  is  itself  a  fanciful  misapplication 
of  the  principles  of  Greek  and  Latin  prosody  to  the  measured  prose  of  the 
Hebrew  prophets.  The  solemn  repetition  of  the  last  clause  of  ver.  3  would 
be  just  as  natural  in  an  oration  as  in  an  ode  or  a  dramatic  chorus.  The 
injurious  eflects  of  this  exaggerated  theory  of  Hebrew  versification  on  the 
criticism  and  interpretation  of  the  sacred  text  have  been  akeady  stated  in 
the  general  introduction,  pp.  32,  33. 

.  8.  The  word  which  God  had  sent  had  reached  the  people;  they  had 
heard  and  understood  it,  but  continued  to  indulge  thtir  pride  and  self- 
security.  And  they  know  (^the  divine  ihvcaienmg),  the  people,  all  of  them, 
(literally  all  of  it ;  the  noun  being  singular  but  used  collectively),  Ejihraini 
and  the  inhabitant  of  Samaria  (a  limitation  of  the  general  teiTus  preceding, 
so  as  to  prevent  their  application  to  Judah),  in  pride  and  in  greatness  of 
heart  (an  equivalent  expression),  saying  (the  words  recorded  in  the  next 
verse.)     The  apparent  inversion  in  the  last  clause  is  well   explained  by 

'Hendewerk,  as  arising  from  the  fact  that  lOS'?  always  stands  immediately 
before  the  words  spoken.     Most  writers  understand  the  verbs  as  futures ; 

'but  this  is  a  question  of  no  moment,  as  the  past  time  which  the  Prophet  has 
in  view  upon  the  other  supposition,  was  actually  future  at  the  date  of  the 
prediction.  Lowth  arbitrarily  translates  the  rav  at  the  beginning  of  this 
verse  because,  and  that  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  10  therefore,  making  one  long 
sentence.  Luther,  Hendewerk,  and  Ewald,  render  it  by  that,  and  make  the 
construction  a  subjunctive  one — "  that  they  may  know  or  feel  it  " — which  is 
at  least  unnecessary.  Umbreit  not  only  gives  the  same  construction,  but 
takes  lyT'  in  the  absolute  sense  of  having  or  obtaining  knowledge  (das  zu 
Erkentniss  komme),  which  is  less  consistent  both  with  usage  and  the  con- 
text than  the  common  opinion  that  the  "1^"I  of  ver.  7  is  the  object  of  the 
verb.     Vitringa,  Gesenius,  and  many  others,  understand  the  clause  to  mean 

•  that  they  should  know  the  truth  of  these  predictions  by  experience.  It 
rather  means  that  they  had  known  and  understood  God's  wai-ning  message. 
By  the  people  we  are  not  to  understand  the  whole  race  (Junius),  but  the 
ten  trilte.s,  or  perhaps  the  whole  race  and  especially  the  ten  tribes  (J.  H. 
Michaelis).  The  suffix  in  17D,  is  referred  by  Gill  to  im— the  people  shall 
know  all  of  it,  /.  e.  all  the  word—"  they  shall  find  that  the  whole  of  it  will 
be  accomplished,  every  punctilio  in  it."  Gesenius,  Hendewerk,  and  Um- 
breit render  it  his  (sein  ganzes  Volk),  as  if  referring  to  the  names  in  ver.  7. 
Its  real  antecedent  is  Dyn,  as  the  construction  is  the  common  Hebrew  one 


Ver.  9.J  ISAIAH  IX.  211 

in  all  such  cases — the  people,  all  of  it,  i.  e.  all  the  people.  The  Septuagint 
makes  people  govern  Ephrahn  (ttccs  6  Xcthg  rou  'E<?pai/jt,) ;  but  in  Hebrew 
this  construction  is  forbidden  by  the  article.  The  inhabitant  of  Samaria  is 
distinctlj-  mentioned,  as  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  are  in  chap.  viii.  14. 
Schultens  (in  his  Animadv.  Philol.  ad  Jer.  1.  11)  gives  to  3  the  sense  of 
for,  because  of,  and  connects  it  with  what  goes  before.  It  really  means  in 
or  icith,  and  connects  the  noun  with  what  follows.  ?!75  is  inaccurately 
rendered  as  an  adjective,  agreeing  with  227,  by  the  Septuagint  {l-^r,Xfjf 
xa^d/cf)  and  Hendewerk  (stolzem  Herzen).  Greatness  of  heart  in  Hebrew 
does  not  mean  magnanimity,  but  pride  and  arrogance.  (Vide  infra,  chap. 
X.  12).  The  feeling  here  described  is  not  "a  desire  of  splendoioi-,  power, - 
and  magnificence,  a  purpose  to  be  distinguished"  (Barnes),  but  a  misplaced 
confidence  in  the  stability  of  their  condition.  "lOX^,  although  an  infinitive  - 
in  form,  is  not  incoiTectly  rendered  as  a  gerund  (dicendo)  by  Pag-ninus, 
Montanus,  and  Cocceius.  A  relative  construction  is  prefen-ed  by  Luther 
(die  da  sagen),  Calvin  (qui  dicunt),  J.  H.  Michaelis  (dum  dicunt),  and 
many  others.  The  participial  form  of  the  EngHsh  Version  is  given  also  by 
the  Septuagint,  Vulgate,  and  Dutch  Versions,  by  Vitringa,  and  by  Lowth. 
There  is  no  necessity  or  ground  for  the  interrogative  construction  given  by  > 
De  Dieu  (an  in  superbia  dicendum  fuit?).  Forerius  strangely  understands 
the  Prophet  as  sarcastically  sa;)dng  that  the  people  shall  be  taught  to  say, 
in  their  pride  and  arrogance,  what  follows.  Hitzig,  without  the  u-ony — the 
people  shall  be  made  conscious  of  their  own  pride  and  arrogance  in  saying, 
&c.  But  this  construction  seems  to  overlook  the  preposition.  "IC)N  is  not 
to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  purposing  or  thinking,  which  it  sometimes  ob- 
tams  from  an  ellipsis  of  U'?  ^X,  in  his  heart,  or  to  himself  (Gen.  xxvii.  41), 
butin  its  proper  sense  of  speaking,  as  the  usual  expression  of  intention  and 
desh-e.  The  conjectm-al  emendation  of  the  text  by  changing  1J?*T'  to  IVI''  • 
(Houbigant),  nm^  (Seeker),  or  )niy  (Lowth),  is  perfectly  gratuitous. 

9.  The  very  words  of  the  self-confident  Ephraimites  are  now  recorded. 
Instead  of  being  warned  and  instructed  by  what  they  had  already  sufi'ered, 
they  presumptuously  look  for  greater  prosperity  than  ever.  Bricks  are 
fallen,  and  hewn  stone  uill  ice  build;  sycamores  are  felled,  and  cedars  will  we 
substitute.  The  oriental  bricks  are  unburnt,  so  that  most  of  their  brick  i 
structures  are  as  little  durable  as  mud  walls.  The  sycamore  is  durable,, 
but  too  light  and  spongy  to  be  used  in  sohd  building.  The  latter  is  accord- 
ingly contrasted  with  the  cedar,  and  the  former  with  hewn  stone,  the  two 
most  highly  valued  building  materials.  By  some  intei-preters  these  words  . 
are  literally  understood.  According  to  J.  H.  Michaelis,  they  refer  to  the 
cities  of  the  ten  tribes  which  the  Syrians  destroyed  ;  according  to  Gill,  to 
the  houses  outside  of  the  cities  and  pecuHarly  exposed  to  the  invaders.  So 
Knobel  understands  the  sense  to  be,  that  instead  of  the  mean  houses  which 
the  Assyrians  had  destroyed,  the  people  of  the  ten  tribes  were  determined 
to  build  better.  Hitzig  and  De  Wette  suppose  that  sycamores  and  cedars 
are  here  mentioned,  not  as  timber,  but  as  living  trees,  and  give  ^''hm  the 
specific  sense  of  planting  anew.  Thus  Calvin  understands  the  people  to  be 
here  represented  as  regarding  the  devastations  of  the  enemy  only  as  occa- 
Bions  for  increasing  the  beauty  of  their  houses  and  plantations.  But  as  this 
implies  a  protracted  process,  we  must  either  suppose  it  to  be  put  into  the 
mouth  of  the  presumptuous  IsraeUtes  as  a  foohsh  boast,  or  understand  it 
figuratively.  So  indeed  the  whole  verse  is  explained  by  many,  of  whom  . 
some  regard  the  brick,  stone,  and  trees  as  figures  for  great  men  in  general 
(Targum),  or  for  the  kings  of  Israel  in  particulai-  (Jarchi),  or  for  the  State 


212  ISAIAH  IX.  [Ver.  10. 

considered  as  a  building  or  a  tree  (Hendcwerk),  while  others  more  correctly 
understand  both  clauses  as  a  metaphorical  description  of  a  change  from 
worse  to  better,  by  a  substitution  of  the  precious  for  the  vile,  without  spe- 
cific reference  to  the  literal  rebuilding  of  towns  or  houses.  Bricks  and 
sycamores  arc  then  mere  proverbial  expressions  for  that  which  is  inferior, 
and  cedars  and  hewn  stones  for  that  which  is  superior.  An  illustrative 
parallel  is  found  in  chap.  Ix.  17,  where  the  same  general  idea  is  expressed 
b}'  the  exchange  of  stones  for  iron,  iron  for  silver,  wood  for  brass,  brass  for 
gold,  of  course  without  allusion  to  a  literal  exchange  or  mutual  substitution. 
Jerome  refers  this  verse  to  the  low  condition  of  Judah  under  Ahaz,  and 
the  boastful  determination  of  the  ten  tribes  to  subdue  and  then  restore  it 
to  its  former  splendour  ;  but  it  really  relates  to  what  the  ten  tribes  had 
themselves  endured,  and  expresses  their  belief  that  these  reverses  would  be 
followed  by  a  better  state  of  things  than  they  had  ever  known.  Cocceius 
understands  the  sense  to  be  that  the  prosperity  enjoyed  already  would  be  fol- 
lowed by  still  greater  ;  but  even  an  inferior  degree  of  prosperity  would  hardly 
have  been  represented  by  the  metaphor  of  fallen  bricks  and  prostrate  trees. 
10.  Here  begins  a  second  stage  in  the  progress  of  God's  judgments.  He 
had  sent  a  warning  prophecy  before  (ver.  7),  and  they  had  been  taught  its 
meaning  by  experience  (ver.  8),  but  without  effect  upon  their  proud  self- 
confidtnce.  And  (novf)  Jehovah  raises  tip  above  him  [i.e.  Ephraim)  the 
(victorious)  enemies  of  Bezin  (his  late  ally),  and  (besides  these)  he  xcill  insti- 
gate his  otvn  (accustomed)  enemies  (to  wit,  those  mentioned  in  the  next 
verse).  The  suffix  in  1''7y,  refers,  not  to  Rezin,  but  to  Jacob,  Israel, 
Ephraim,  the  inhabitant  of  Samaria,  mentioned  in  vers.  8,  9.  They  who 
were  to  conquer  Israel  are  called  the  enemies  of  Rezin,  to  remind  the  Israel- 
ites of  their  alliance  with  him,  and  to  intimate  that  they  who  had  so  lately 
conquered  Syria  were  soon  to  conquer  Israel.  There  is  no  need  therefore 
of  the  emendation  ^l^*,  princes,  which  is  found  in  many  manuscripts,  and 
approved  by  Houbigant  and  Ewald,  but  which  seems  to  be  a  mere  attempt 
to  escape  the  supposed  difficulties  of  the  common  reading  *"iV,  which  has 
here  no  doubt  its  usual  sense  of  enemies,  with  a  particular  allusion  to 
its  etymology  as  meaning  those  who  press,  oppress,  and  overcome,  so  that 
in  this  connection  it  would  really  suggest  the  idea  of  Rezin's  conquerors, 
which  is  expressed  by  Hitzig.  Still  less  is  it  necessary  to  exchange  P^'"l  for 
|VV  or  IVV  tn,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  is  disposed  to  do,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Septuagint  (s-s-/  o'soj  '^itLv). — 1  vV  may  be  properly  translated,  as  it  usually  is, 
against  him,  which  idea  is  undoubtedly  included ;  but  connected  as  it  is 
with  the  verb  231?**,  the  proposition  may  be  taken  in  its  original  and  proper 
sense  oi  over  or  above.  "  Then  he  exalted  Rezzin's  enemies  above  him." 
By  V3*X  we  are  to  understand  his  on- n  foes,  those  to  whose  attacks  he  was 
accustomed,  in  addition  to  the  enemies  of  Urzin,  the  Assmans.  "IDDD''  is 
rendered  by  the  Septuagint  scatter  {diaay.iddeii),  and  by  the  Vulgate  con- 
found (in  tumultumvertet),  misprinted  in  the  London  Polyglot  //;  tumulum. 
.It  is  taken  in  the  sense  of  mixing  or  combining  by  Calvin  (conturbabit), 
Grotius  (conglomeravit),  Munster,  Castalio,  and  others.  J.  H.  Michaelis, 
who  adopts  this  version,  explains  nx  as  a  preposition  meaning  irilh  (eosque 
cum  hostibus  Israelis  commiscebit).  Others  suppose  an  allusion  to  the 
mixture  of  nations  in  the  Assyrian  army  (Calvin),  or  to  the  mixture  of 
Assyrians  with  the  Syrian  population  (Vatabulus).  Gesenius,  in  his  Com- 
mentary, and  in  the  earlier  editions  of  his  Lexicon,  follows  Schultens  and 
J.  D.  Michaelis  in  attaching  to  this  word  the  sense  of  arming,  which  is 
adopted  by  Rosenmiiller  in  the  abridgment_of  his  Scholia,  and  by  Hitzig, 


Veb.  11-13.J  ISAIAH  IX.  213 

Maurer,  Hendewerk  and  De  Wette.  But  Gesenius  himself,  in  his  Thesau- 
rus, now  explains  the  word  as  meaning  to  excite,  raise  up,  or  instigate,  an 
explanation  given  in  the  Targum  ("'''i'^)  and  by  Saadias,  Abulwalid,  and 
Cocceius  (iustigat). 

11.  This  verse  contains  a  more  particular  description  of  Ephraim's  own 
enemies  who  were  to  be  stirred  up  against  him,  with  a  declaration  that  this 
was  not  to  be  the  end  of  the  infliction.     Aram  (or  Syria  in  the  widest  sense)  ■ 
before,  and  Philistia  (or  the  Philistines)  behind,  and  they  devour  Israel  uith 
open  mouth,  {i.e.  ravenously).     For  all  this  (or  notwithstanding  all  this) 
his  u-rath  does  not  turn  back  (from  the  pursuit  or  the  attack),  and  still  his 
hand  is  stretched  out.     On  the  meaning  of  this  clause,  vide  supra,  chap,  v,  — 
25.     The  S3Tians  and  Philistines  are  supposed  by  some  to  be  referred  to, . 
as  forming  part  of  the  Assyrian  army.     The  reference  may,  however,  be 
to  separate  attacks  from  these  two  powers.     Before  and  behind  may  simply, 
mean  on  opposite  sides,  or  more  specifically  to  the  east  and  west,  which  are 
often  thus  described  in  Hebrew.     n£  ?33  does  not  mean  in  everyplace  (Tar- 
gum)  or  on  all  sides  (Lowth) — nor   does  it  mean  tvith  all  their  mouths 
(Peshito),  i.e.  the  mouths  of  all  their  enemies — but  rcith  the  luhole  mouth, 
with  the  mouth  wide  open,  as  expressed  by  Luther  (mit  voUem  Maul),  Cal- 
vin   (a  pleine  bouche),  and  most  modern  writers.     J.  H.  MichaeUs  makes 
nST  722  meanou  account  or  in  consequence  of  all  this.     It  is  clear,  however, 
from  the  fii'st  clause  and  the  whole  connection,  that  the  reference  is  not  to  the  ♦ 
people's  sin  but  to  their  punishment. 

12.  These  continued  and  repeated  strokes  are  still  without  effect"  in 
bringing  the  people  to  repentance.     And  the  people  has  not  turned  to  him 
that  smote  them,  and  Jehovah  of  hosts  they  have  not  sought.      Sin  is  described . 
in  Scriptm-e  as  departing  from  God.      Eepentance,  therefore,  is  return- , 
ing  to  him.     To  seek  God,  in  the  idiom  of  Scripture,  is  to  pray  to  him  (Isa. , 
Iv.  6),  to  consult  him  (Isa.  viii.  19),  to  resort  to  him  for  help  (Isa.  xxxi.  1), 
to  hold  communion  with  him  (Amos  v.  4,  5).     Hence  it  is  sometimes  de- 
scriptive of  a  godly  life  in  general  (Ps.  xiv.  2).     So  here  it  includes  repen-  ■ 
tance,  conversion,  and  new  obedience.     Calvin,  followed  by  the  Enghsh 
version,  makes  the  vav  at  the  beginning  mean  because  or  for.     This  verse, 
however,  does  not  assign  the  reason  of  the  fact  recorded  in  the  one  preced-^ 
ing,   but  continues  the   description.     God  went    on    punishing,   and  the 
people  went  on  sinning.     The  strict  sense  of  the  particle  may  therefore  be 
retained.     The  first  verb  agrees  with  QV  in  form  as  a  singular ;  the  second  ♦ 
agrees  with  it  in  sense  as  a  collective.     The  preposition  "l^,  which  strictly 
means  until,  as  far  as,  is  regarded  by  Cocceius  as  emphatic,  and  as  signify- 
ing that  the  people,  if  they  turned  at  all,  did  not  inm  far  enough.     But  as 
this  preposition  often  follows    2'y  when  used  in  the  sense  of  retui'ning  to 
God  by  repentance,  it  may  be  regarded  merely  as  an  idiomatic  substitute 
for    /X.       A  single    manuscript  reads   ?y  for  IV.     The  unusual  combina- 
tion of  the -article  and  suffix  in  iriDOn  is  regarded  by  Gesenius  (Lehrg.  p. . 
658)  as  a  simple  anomaly,  and  by  Nordheimer  (vol.  ii.  p.  13)  as  an  em- 
phatic form ;  but  Ewald  (§  516,  3)  explains  it  by  supposing  in  to  be  not  a 
possessive  but  an  objective  suffix,  governed  by  the  participle.     The  difler- 
ence  of  construction  is  the  same  as  in  the  English  phrases  his  smiter  and  the 
(one)  smiting  him.      God  is  thus  described,  as  Aben  Ezra  has  observed,  in 
order  to  intimate  that  he  v/as  the  inflicter  of  their  punishment — the  Assyrian 
being  merely  the  rod  of  his  anger  (chap.  x.  5) — and  also   that  his  stroke 
sought  to  lead  them  to  repentance. 

13.  The  next  stroke  mentioned  is  a  sudden  destruction  among  all  ranks 


214  ISAIAH  IX.  [Vee.  14. 

of  the  people,  the  extremes  heing  designated  by  two  figures  drawn  from  the 
animal  and  vegetable  world.  And  Jchnrah  has  cut  off' /row  Israel  head  and 
tail,  branch  and  rush,  in  one  day.  nS3  does  not  mean  a  root  (Aben  Ezra), 
nor  a  branch  in  general  (Kimchi),  but  a  branch  of  the  palm-tree  (Gesenius 
in  Comm,),  or  the  tree  itself  (Gesenius  in  Thes.).  This  tree,  though  now 
rare  in  the  Holy  Land,  abounded  there  of  old,  especially  in  the  southern 
part,  where  several  places  were  named  after  it  (Deut.  xxxiv.  3 ;  2  Chron. 
XX.  2).  Hence  it  appears  on  Roman  coins  as  the  symbol  of  Judea.  It  is 
highly  esteemed  in  the  East,  both  for  beauty  and  utility.  Its  branches 
grow  near  the  top  of  its  lofty  trunk  and  bend  towards  the  ground,  as  its 
leaves  do  also,  with  a  gentle  curvature,  resembling  that  of  a  hand  partly 
closed,  from  which  peculiarity  the  Hebrew  name  HDD  and  the  Latin  pabna 
seem  to  be  derived.  It  is  here  contrasted  with  the  110JN,  not  a  smaller 
branch  or  twig  (Jarchi),  but  a  rush  or  reed,  so  called  from  DJX,  a  marsh, 
because  it  is  in  such  ground  that  it  chiefly  grows.  The  Targum  seems  to 
treat  the  figure  as  synonymous,  not  opposite  in  meaning,  perhaps  with 
some  allusion  to  the  Greek  word  r]ys/MU)v.  Palm  and  rttsh  are  explained  to 
mean  the  strong  and  weak  by  Kimchi  and  Cocceius,  who  refer  them  speci- 
fically to  the  young  men  and  warriors,  as  contrasted  with  the  widows  and 
orphans  in  ver.  IG.  It  is  best,  however  to  understand  them  as  denoting 
more  generally  that  which  is  superior  and  inferior,  including  every  class  in 
the  community.  The  figures  are  correctly  resolved  by  the  Septuagint  {fjt,syav 
xai  /MiK^ov),  and  strangely  rendered  by  the  Vulgate  (incurvantem  et  refraenan- 
tem),  perhaps  with  some  allusion  to  the  derivation  of  the  Hebrew  words. 
It  is  a  singular  conceit  of  Gill's  that  the  use  of  the  terms  head  and  tail  was 
intended  to  imply  that  the  people  had  become  beasts,  which  no  more  fol- 
lows than  it  does  from  the  use  of  the  terms  branch  and  ntsh  that  they  had 
become  plants. 

14.  To  the  descriptive  figures  of  the  preceding  verse,  the  Prophet  now 
adds  a  specific  appHcation  of  the  first.  Jehovah  had  cut  oS"  from  Israel, 
not  only  in  a  general  sense,  the  upper  and  lower  classes  of  society,  but  in 
a  more  restricted  sense,  the  wicked  rulers,  who  were  the  corrupt  head  of 
the  body  politic,  and  the  false  prophets  who,  as  their  abject  adherents,  and 
on  account  of  their  h}'pocrisy  and  false  pretensions  to  divine  authority, 
might  be  regarded  as  its  tail,  because  contemptible  and  odious,  even  in 
comparison  with  other  wicked  men,  who  laid  no  claim  to  a  religious  charac- 
ter. The  elder  and  the  favourite  (or  honourable  person),  he  is  the  head, 
and  the  prophet  teaching  falsehood,  he  is  the  tail.  On  the  meaning  of  IPt 
and  CJS  KIK'a,  vide  supra,  chap.  iii.  2,  3.  That  the  head  is  not  explained 
to  mean  the  ling,  may  be,  as  Hendewerk  suggests,  because  the  prophecy 
relates  to  the  time  which  immediately  succeeded  the  death  of  Pekah.  Hen- 
derson transposes  the  conjunction  in  the  last  clause — the  prophet  and  the 
teacher  of  lies — but  nilO  is  properly  a  participle,  and  is  needed  to  qualify 
**''33.  It  is  not  the  prophet,  as  such,  but  the  prophet  teaching  falsehood,  who 
is  called  the  tail.  The  teaching  of  falsehood  docs  not  mean  the  teaching 
oi  traditions  (J,  H.  Michaelis),  or  of  vice  (Septuagint),  but  teaching  in 
the  name  of  God  what  he  has  not  revealed.  The  Targum  makes  N^33  de- 
note a  scribe  (13D)  or  doctor  of  the  law  ;  but  it  must  have  its  sense  of 
prophet,  as  denoting  one  who  claims  to  bo  inspired.  The  false  prophets 
are  called  the  tail,  not  because  they  were  weak  (Targum),  or  of  low  extrac- 
tion (Gill),  or  of  a  mean  spirit,  like  a  dog  which  wags  its  tail  upon  its  master 
(Musculas),  nor  because  their  false  doctrine  was  like  the  poison  in  the  stings 
of  scorpions  (Mcnochius),  nor  because  the  civil  rulers  and  religious  teachers 


Yer.  15.J  •  ISAIAH  IX.  215 

were  the  two  extremes  between  which  the  mass  of  the  people  was  inchided 
(Vitringa) ;  but  because  the  false  prophets  were  morally  the  basest  of  the 
people,  aud  because  they  were  the  servile  adherents  and  supporters  of  the 
wicked  rulers.  With  respect  both  to  the  head  which  they  followed  and  the 
body  of  which  they  were  the  vilest  part,  they  might  be  justly  be  called  the 
tail.  This  verse  has  been  rejected,  as  a  gloss  or  interpolation,  by  Houbi- 
gant,  Koppe,  Cube,  Eichhorn,  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  aud  Ivnobel,  on 
the  ground  that  it  interrupts  the  natural  consecution  of  the  passage  ;  that 
it  is  too  prosaic  for  a  poetical  context ;  that  it  contains  a  superfluous  ex- 
planation of  a  common  proverbial  expression  ;  that  it  explains  it  in  a  man- 
ner inconsistent  with  the  context,  as  the  figures  in  ver.  13  obviously  mean 
the  high  and  the  low  generally  ;  that  it  explains  only  one  of  the  two  figures 
in  that  verse  ;  that  it  has  the  very  form  of  an  explanatory  gloss  ;  that  it 
breaks  the  strophical  arrangement  by  giving  to  this  strophe  a  supernumerary 
verse.  To  this  it  may  be  answered,  that  correctly  understood  it  does  not 
interrupt  the  train  of  thought,  but  sensibly  advances  it ;  that  it  is  not  too 
prosaic  for  the  context,  and  that  if  it  were,  Isaiah  was  a  prophet,  not  a  poet 
by  profession,  and  was  always  wise  enough  to  sacrifice  rhetoric  and  rhythm  to 
common  sense  and  inspiration  ;  that  if  the  verse  contained  an  explanation  not 
suggested  by  the  context,  it  could  not  be  superfluous ;  that  it  is  not  an 
explanation  of  the  figures  in  ver.  13,  but  a  more  specific  application  of  the 
first  of  them  ;  that  the  Prophet  did  not  make  a  like  use  of  the  second, 
because  it  was  not  equally  suited  to  his  purpose  of  expressing  his  con- 
tempt for  the  false  prophets  ;  that  the  same  form  is  used  in  cases  where 
no  interpolation  is  suspected  ;  and  lastly,  that  the  strophical  arrangement 
is  itself  a  modern  figment,  founded  on  a  kind  of  rejDetition  which  is  not  un- 
usual in  animated  prose.  (Vide  supra  ad  ver.  7.)  Another  answer  to  the 
last  objection  is  given  in  Hendewerk's  commentary  on  the  passage,  which, 
with  this  exception,  is  an  admirable  refutation  of  the  adverse  argument  as 
stated  by  Gesenius.  The  interpolation  of  these  words  is  ascribed  by 
Gesenius  to  some  very  ancient  Jewish  polemic.  But  if  so  old,  why  may  it  not 
be  a  little  older,  and  the  work  of  Isaiah  himself,  who  was  certainly  no 
friend  of  the  false  prophets  ?  The  rhetorical  objections  to  this  obvious 
conclusion  are  not  only  insufticient  because  they  are  rhetorical,  but  because 
the  rhetoric  itself  is  bad. 

15.  This  verse  gives  a  reason,  not  why  all  classes  were  to  be  destroyed, 
but  why  the  rulers  and  false  prophets  had  been  specially  mentioned.  It 
arises,  therefore,  naturally  out  of  the  fourteenth,  and  thus  incidentally  proves 
it  to  be  genuine.  The  truth  expressed  and  implied  is  that  the  leaders  of  the 
people  had  destroyed  them,  and  should  perish  with  them.  The  leaders  of 
this  people  have  heen  seducers,  and  the  led  of  them  (are)  swalloived  tip  (or 
ruined).  On  the  double  meaning  of  ''"li^XXS,  and  the  paronomasia  erroneously 
introduced  by  some  translators,  vide  supm,  chap.  iii.  12,  where  the  verb  V^l 
occurs  in  the  same  connection.  On  Ewald's  supposition,  that  the  fom'teenth 
verse  was  interpolated  from  that  chapter,  the  verse  before  us  ought  to  be  re- 
jected also.  Luther  explains  Vlt^NO  as  meaning  those  who  suffer  themselves 
to  be  led  (die  sieh  leiten  lassen) ;  Hendewerk,  those  who  were  to  be,  or 
ought  to  have  been  rendered  happy  (seine  zu  begliickenden).  But  even  sup- 
posing that  the  Hebrew  word  was  intended  to  suggest  both  ideas,  it  cannot 
be  correct  to  express  one  in  the  first  clause,  and  the  other  in  the  second,  as 
the  original  expressions  correspond  exactly,  and  the  primary  sense  must  be 
the  same  in  both.  The  suffix  in  VX'ND,  is  omitted  as  superfluous  by  the 
A''ulgate  and  Gesenius.     Henderson  refers  it  to  ''"iti'^^0  as  its  antecedent  {led 


21G  ISAIAH  IX.  [Vkr.  16,  17. 

hy  t/iem) ;  but  the  true  autecedcnt  is  Dyn  (such  of  the  people  as  are  thus 
misled),  and  is  correctly  pointed  out  as  such  by  Calviu  (in  eo),  Vatablus  (ex 
hoc  populo),  and  others.  According  to  J.  D.  Michaehs,  they  are  said  to  be 
swallowed  tip  in  sloughs  and  pitfalls  ;  according  to  Jarchi,  in  ways  from 
which  there  is  no  exit.  It  is  more  probably,  however,  a  strong  figure  for 
losing  the  way  (Luther),  or  for  destruction  in  general  (Calvin). 

10.  Therefore  (because  the  people  ai"e  thus  incorrigibly  impenitent)  tlie 
Lord  uill  not  rejoice  over  their  young  men  (literally  cliosen  ones,  i.  e.  for 
military  service,  the  word  being  used  in  the  general  sense  of  youths,  but 
seldom  without  reference  to  war),  arid  on  their  orphans  and  their  vndoits 
(elsewhere  represented  as  peculiarly  the  objects  of  God's  care)  he  will  not 
have  mercy  (expressing  in  the  strongest  form  the  extent  and  severity  of  the 
threatened  judgments), /or  every  one  of  them  (literally  of  it,  referring  to  the 
singular  noun  peojile)  is  profane  (or  impious)  and  an  evil  doer,  and  every 
mouth  (is)  speaking  folly  (in  the  strong  Hebrew  sense  of  wickedness).  For 
all  this  his  wrath  is  not  turned  hack,  and  still  is  his  hand  outstretched.  The 
Vulgate,  Aben  Ezra,  Calvin,  Vitringa,  Lowth,  and  Fiirst  give  to  ^l^n  the 
sense  of  hypocrite  or  hypocritical.  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  the  other  modem 
writers  give  it  the  general  sense  of  impious  or  wiclced,  as  expressed  by  the 
Septuagint  (avo/xoi).  This  explanation  is  supported  by  etymological  analogy, 
the  other  by  rabbinical  tradition.  Lee,  from  the  analogy  of  Hyriac,  explains 
it  to  mean  heathenish,  idolatrous  (Hebrew  Lexicon,  s.  v.).  The  ^  in  VIO  is 
taken  as  a  preposition  (of  evil,  made  up  or  consisting  of  evil)  by  Hitzig  (vom 
Argen),  Ewald  (vom  Bosen),  De  "Wctte  and  Knobel.  Gesenius,  Umbreit, 
and  the  older  wi'iters  treat  it  as  a  participle  from  VV"^.  Calvin  explains 
n723  "12T  as  implymg  that  they  uttered  their  own  wickedness,  betrayed  them- 
selves ;  but  it  probably  means  nothing  more  than  that  they  were  wicked  in 
speech  as  well  as  act.  For  ''^"'{^  Lowth  reads  n^H''  on  the  authority  of  eighteen 
manuscripts. 

17.  This  verse  assigns  a  reason  why  God's  hand  is  still  stretched  out  for 
the  destruction  of  his  people,  by  describing  that  destruction  as  the  natural 
ell'ect  of  their  own  wickedness,  here  likened  to  a  fire  beginning  near  the 
ground  among  the  thorns  and  briers,  then  extending  to  the  undergi-owth  or 
brushwood  of  the  forest,  which,  as  it  consumes  away,  ascends  in  a  volume 
of  smoke.  For  wickedness  burncth  as  the  fire,  thorns  and  briers  it  con- 
sumes, then  kindles  in  the  thickets  of  the  forest,  and  they  roll  themselves 
upwards,  a  column,  (literally,  an  ascent)  of  smoke.  Most  of  the  older  writers 
ti'auslate  all  the  verbs  as  futures,  thus  converting  the  whole  verse  into  a 
threatening.  But  the  interchange  of  preterite  and  future  forms,  as  well  as 
the  connection,  seems  to  shew  that  they  should  be  explained  as  presents,  and 
as  expressing  the  natural  eftects  of  wickedness,  in  the  form  of  a  description 
or  a  general  proposition.  The  Vav  conversive  before  rivn  shews  it  to  be 
dependent  on  the  foregoing  verbs  and  posterior  in  point  of  time,  a  relation 
which  may  be  expressed  in  English  by  exchanging  and  for  then.  Hender- 
son gives  nj?:ri  the  specific  meaning  of  idolatry  (See  Zech.  v.  8-11),  but 
Luther  more  coiTectly  that  of  wickedness  in  general,  of  heart  and  life  (das 
gottlose  Wesen).  Thorns  and  briers  are  often  used  as  emblems  of  the 
wicked  (Micah  vii.  4,  Neh.  i.  10,  2  Sam.  xxiii.  G),  and  their  burning  as  a 
figure  for  the  punishment  of  sinners  (Isa.  xxxiii.  12,  Ps.  cxviii.  12,  2  Sam. 
xxiii.  7),  especially  by  means  of  foreign  enemies  (Isa.  x.  17,  xxxii.  IB). 
Most  of  the  recent  German  versions  render  the  last  Vav  so  that,  in  order  lo 
shew  that  what  precedes  is  related  to  what  Ibllows  as  the  cause  to  its  efiect. 
The  verb  133Nn\  which  occurs  nowhere  else,  has  been  variously  derived  and 


Yer.  18.J  ISAIAH  IX.  217 

explained  as  meaning  to  be  pulverized  (Cocceius,  Junius),  to  move  proudly 
(Castellus,  J.  D.  Micbaelis),  to  ascend  (Aben  Ezra,  Kimcbi,  Calvin).  This 
last  sense  is  combined  with  that  of  spreading  out  by  J.  Micbaelis  (ut  ex- 
pandant  et  elevent  se).  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  other  modern  Germans, 
adopt  the  sense  of  rolling  or  being  rolled  together,  which  is  given  in  the 
Vulgate  and  Peshito,  and  by  Saadias,  Abulwalid,  Jarchi,  and  Rabbi  Par- 
chon.  The  Vulgate  makes  the  verb  agree  with  rilNJ  (convolvetur  superbia 
fumi),  Eichhorn  with  ^V^  ;  but  it  really  agrees  with  the  thickets  of  the  forest 
■ — and  tJiey  (the  burning  thickets)  are  rolled  (or  roll  themselves)  together. 
The  meaning  of  rilNJ  is  not  j^ride  (Vulgate),  but  elevation  or  ascent,  and  in 
this  connection  an  ascending  body,  column,  cloud,  or  volume.  It  may  either 
be  governed  by  the  preposition  in  understood,  or  construed  as  the  object  of 
the  verb,  or  put  in  apposition  with  its  subject.  Theij  roll  iipuards  [i)i  or 
fls)  a  volume  of  smoke. 

18.  The  figure  of  a  general  conflagration  is  continued  in  this  verse,  and 
then  exchanged  for  a  literal  description  of  the  miseries  produced  by  civil 
war.  In  the  %orath  of  Jehovah  of  hosts,  the  land  is  darkened  with  the 
smoke — or  heated  by  the  flame — and  the  people  is  like  food  (or  fuel)  of 
fire — one  another  (literally,  nMU  his  Irother)  they  do  not  spare.  Most 
writers  understand  the  2  at  the  beginning  in  the  sense  of  Inj  or  through, 
as  denoting  the  cause  or  the  means  by  which  the  efl'ect  is  produced. 
Thus  Hendewerk  observes  that  the  displeasure  of  Jehovah  is  described  as 
the  second  source  of  misery  ;  and  Henderson  says  that  "  instead  of  being 
fiu-ther  represented  as  resulting  from  wickedness,  the  conflagration  is  re- 
solved into  the  anger  of  God  as  the  avenger  of  sin."  But  this  is  not  neces- 
sarily the  meaning  of  the  particle,  and  in  chap.  xiii.  13,  where  the  same  phrase 
occurs — in  the  wrath  of  Jehovah  of  hosts,  and  in  the  day  of  his  fierce  anger 
— the  3  in  one  clause  seems  to  mean  the  same  thing  as  0^3  in  the  other. 
It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  in  this  case  also  it  denotes  not  the  cause  but 
the  time  of  the  event,  and  should  not  be  rendered  Inj  or  through,  but  simply 
//(,  i.e.  in  the  time  or  during.  There  is  then  no  departure  fi'om  the  import 
of  the  figure  in  ver.  17.  That  the  sufferings  of  Israel  were  produced  by 
the  divine  wrath,  is  abundantly  implied,  though  not  expressed. — CiriJ?3,  which 
occurs  only  here,  has  been  variously  derived,  and  explained  as  meaniog  to 
tremble  (Peshito),  to  be  disturbed  (Vulgate),  to  be  smitten  (Saadias),  to  be 
wasted  (Gesenius  in  Lex.  Man.),  &c.  Kimchi,  Luther,  Calvin,  the  EngUsh 
version,  Vitringa,  Lo\yth,  J.  D.  Michaehs,  Barnes,  and  Umbreit,  make  it 
mean  to  be  darkened,  which  agrees  well  with  the  figures  of  the  foregoing 
verse.  But  Gesenius  (in  Thes.),  Rosenmiiller,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk, 
Ewald,  Knobel,  follow  the  Septuagint  and  Targum  and  the  Arabic  analogy 
in  giving  the  sense  of  being  burnt  or  burnt  up.  The  agreement  of  p^  with 
a  masculine  verb,  here  and  in  a  few  other  cases  {e.g.  Gen.  xiii.  6 ;  Ps.  cv. 
30),  may  be  resolved  into  the  rule  of  Hebrew  syntax,  that  the  verb,  when 
it  stands  before  its  subject,  often  takes  the  simplest  form,  without  regard  to 
the  distinction  of  genders. — n73«D,  a  derivative  of  ?3N,  to  devour,  is  pecu- 
liar not  only  to  this  book,  but  to  this  chapter.  It  denotes  not  the  act  of 
burning  or  consuming  (Lee,  Heb.  Lex.),  but  the  thing  consumed.  The 
particle  before  it  is  omitted  by  Gesenius  and  De  Wette,  but  is  really  impor- 
tant, as  denoting  that  the  language  of  the  verse  is  metaphorical.  The 
grammatical  subject  of  1?0n''  is  not  t^'''^,  but  the  people  under^tood.  The 
original  construction  is  retained  in  the  versions  of  Cocceius,  Rosenmiiller, 
Hitzig,  Barnes,  and  Ewald.  The  word  brother  may  have  merely  its  idiomatic 
meaning  oi  atiother  person,  or  be  treated  as  emphatic,  and  as  meaning  that 


218  ISALITI  IX.  [Vee.  19,  20. 

the  nearest  ties  of.blood  were  disregarded  (Calvin).  Kimclii  supposes  that 
although  the  figure  of  a  conflagration  seems  to  be  dropped  in  the  last  clause, 
there  is  really  a  tacit  allusion  to  the  mutual  ignition  of  one  tree  or  piece  of 
wood  by  another. 

19.  The  horrors  of  civil  war  are  now  presented  under  the  fearful  imago 
of  insatiable  hunger,  leading  men  to  devour  their  own  flesh.  And  he  tears 
on  the  right  hand,  and  is  hungnj  still,  and  devours  on  the  left,  and  still  they 
are  not  satisfied  ;  each  the  flesh  of  his  own  arm  they  devour.  Ewald  refers 
the  first  clause  to  the  past,  and  the  second  to  the  present ;  Umbreit  the 
first  to  the  present,  and  the  second  to  the  future.  But  the  \erj  inter- 
mingling of  the  past  and  future  forms  shews  that  the  whole  was  meant  to 
be  descriptive.  The  first  vei-b  has  been  variously  rendered  to  turn  aside 
{Scptuagint,  Vulgate),  to  withdraw  one's  self  (Pagninus,  Montanus),  to  dis- 
tribute (Schmidius),  to  plunder  (Targum,  Jarchi,  Kimchi,  Luther),  to  snatch 
(Calvin,  Grotius,  English  version,  Lowth)  ;  but  the  true  sense  seems  to  be 
to  cut  or  tear  (Junius,  Cocceius,  Henderson),  particularly  with  the  teeth  (De 
Dieu),  and  thence  to  devour  (Gesenius,  De  "Wette,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Ivno- 
bel).  The  English  version  seems  to  make  this  verb  agree  with  ^^i^  in  ver. 
18  (he  shall  snatch);  Calvin,  Cocceius,  and  Yitringa,  with  a  distributive 
pronoun  understood  (rapiet  quisque) ;  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  the  later  Germans 
better  still  with  an  indefinite  subject  {one  devours,  or  they  devour).  The 
Prophet  sees  one  assailing  the  other  on  the  right,  and  the  other  in  turn 
attacking  him  upon  the  left,  and  this  double  subject,  corresponding  to  a  man 
and  his  brother  in  verso  18,  may  have  given  occasion  to  the  plural  forms 
iy3'^'  and  1?3N*,  corresponding  to  'y?'On\  the  plural  verbs  referring  to  the 
people  collectively,  the  singular  nouns  to  the  component  individuals.  The 
Targum  explains  right  and  left  as  meaning  south  and  north  ;  but  they  simply 
denote  that  the  devouring  should  be  mutual,  and  extend  in  all  directions. 
ThefJesh  of  his  oku  arm  is  explained  to  mean  the  wealth  of  his  kindred 
by  the  Targum  (n^anp  ""DiD),  and  Grotius  (res  cognatorum) ;  but  the  figures 
evidently  have  a  stronger  meaning.  Eating  and  fighting  are  cognate  ideas 
in  the  Hebrew  et}Tnology  (compare  QH?  and  ^D??) ;  but  in  this  case  the 
additional  idea,  that  the  fighting  is  between  near  kinsmen,  is  expressed  by 
the  strong  figure  of  devouring  one's  own  flesh,  while  the  special  mention 
of  the  arm  may  imply  (as  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  suggest)  that  the  mutual 
destroyers  ought  to  have  been  mutual  protectors.  Knobel,  indeed,  objects  to 
this  as  a  far-fetched  explanation,  and  supposes  simply  an  allusion  to  the  fact, 
that  starving  men  do  actually  gnaw  their  arms,  as  the  most  convenient  and 
accessible  portion  of  the  body.  Gesenius,  Kosenmiiller,  and  Maurer  give 
to  arm  itself  the  sense  of  neighbour,  which  is  hardly  justified  by  Jer.  xix.  9. 
Still  less  ground  is  there  for  an  emendation  of  the  text  by  reading  lyi  for 
lyiT,  as  proposed  by  Seeker,  and  approved  by  Lowth,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Chaldee  paraphrase  (iTi^np)  and  the  Alexandrian  text  of  the  Scptuagint 
(toD  ahiXc^aZ  airoD),  which  varies  from  the  common  reading  (roD  ^oayjovog 
avTou). 

20.  The  application  of  the  figures  in  ver.  19  is  now  male  plain  by  the 
Prophet  himself,  who  has  been  drawing  no  imaginary  scene.  It  is  Israel, 
the  chosen  race,  that  feeds  on  its  own  flesh.  They  devour  each  the  flesh  of 
his  own  arm — Manasseh  (devours)  Ephraim,  and  Kphraim  Manassch — and 
together  they  (are)  against  Judah.  For  all  this  his  wrath  is  not  turned 
hack,  and  still  his  hand  (is)  stretched  out.  The  tribes  here  specified  are 
chosen  for  two  reasons  :  first,  because  Judah  and  Joseph  were  the  most  im- 
portant branches  of  the  stock  of  Israel,  as  well  before  as  after  the  disrup- 


Ver.  20.]  ISAIAH  IX.  219 

tion ;  and  secondly,  because  tlie  tribes  of  Ephraim  an^  Manasseb  were 
more  nearly  related  to  eacb  otber  tban  to  any  of  the  rest,  and  therefore  their 
hostility  afforded  the  most  striking  illustration  of  the  mutual  rancour  which 
the  Prophet  has  described  as  prevalent.  The  Targum,  followed  by  Jarchi, 
gi-eatly  weakens  the  effect  of  the  first  clause  by  explaining  riX  to  be  the  pre- 
position with,  implying  merely  the  conjunction  of  these  two  tribes  against 
Judah,  without  any  intimation  of  their  mutual  hostility.  The  repetition  of 
the  names  in  that  case  would  be  perfectly  unmeaning.  Gesenius,  Hitzig, 
and  Umbreit  also  explain  riX  as  a  preposition,  but  in  the  sense  of  (ujainst, 
which  it  seldom  has,  and  which  is  in  this  case  very  fiir  from  being  obvious. 
Ewald,  De  Wette,  and  Knobel,  correctly  adhere  to  the  old  construction, 
given  in  the  Septuagint,  which  takes  HX  as  the  sign  of  the  objective  or  ac- 
cusative, and  repeats  the  verb  devour  between  the  two  proper  names.  Vit- 
ringa  goes  still  further,  and  makes  all  the  names  accusatives  (Ephraimum 
Manassen,  Manassen  Ephraimum),  which  leaves  the  verb  without  a  subject 
in  the  sentence,  and  wholly  overlooks  the  objective  particle.  In  the  next 
clause  various  verbs  have  been  supplied — they  shall  besiege  (Septuagint), 
they  shall  unite  (Targum),  they  make  an  attack  (August!) — but  the  simplest 
method  is  to  supply  the  verb  of  existence  are  or  shall  he.  Hitzig  denies 
that  any  joint  action  against  Judah  is  ascribed  to  Manasseb  and  Ephraim. 
But  nn""  seldom  if  ever  means  alike  or  equally;  the  cases  cited  by  Gesenius 
(Thes.,  torn.  ii.  p.  589)  may  all  be  resolved  into  examples  of  the  usual  and 
proper  sense  at  once,  together,  implying  unity  of  time,  place,  and  action. 
Eichhorn's  proposal  to  reject  this  clause  as  a  gloss,  upon  the  ground  that  it 
interrupts  the  sense,  and  is  at  variance  with  the  context  (Hebr.  Proph.  ii. 
p.  219),  although  not  more  um'easonable  than  the  other  propositions  of  the 
same  kind  which  have  been  already  stated,  is  nevertheless  sufficiently  ab- 
surd. Not  only  is  it  common  for  intestine  wars  to  give  occasion  and  give 
place  to  foreign  ones,  as  Gesenius  most  truly  says,  but  this  clause  really  con- 
tinues the  description,  and  adds  gi'eatly  to  its  force,  by  suggesting  the  idea 
that  the  mutual  enmity  of  these  two  kindred  tribes  could  only  be  exceeded 
by  theu'  common  hatred  to  then*  common  relative,  the  tribe  of  Judah. — • 
Grotius  and  Junius  would  refer  this  verse  to  the  time  of  Sennacherib's  inva- 
sion ;  but  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  was  then  no  longer  in  existence, 
and  there  seems  to  be  no  ground  for  Junius's  assertion  or  conjecture,  that 
the  conquered  Israelites  were  forced  to  serve  in  the  Assyrian  army  against 
Judah.  The  allusions  of  the  verse  are  not  to  one  exclusive  period,  but  to  a 
protracted  series  of  events.  The  intestine  strifes  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh, 
although  not  recorded  in  detail,  may  be  inferred  from  various  incidental 
statements.  Of  their  ancient  rivalry  we  have  examples  in  the  history  of 
Gideon  (Judges  -sdii.  1-3)  and  Jephthah  (Judges  xii.  1-6)  ;  and  as  to  later 
times,  it  is  observed  b}^  Vitringa,  that  of  all  who  succeeded  Jeroboam  the 
Second  on  the  throne  of  Israel,  Pekahiah  alone  appears  to  have  attained  it 
without  treachery  or  bloodshed.  That  Manasseh  and  Ephraim  were  both 
against  Judah,  may  refer  either  to  their  constant  enmity  or  to  particular 
attacks.  No  sooner  did  one  party  gain  the  upper  hand  in  the  kingdom  of 
the  ten  tribes,  than  it  seems  to  have  addressed  itself  to  the  favourite  work  of 
harassing  or  conquering  Judah,  as  in  the  case  of  Pekah,  who  invaded  it  almost 
as  soon  as  he  had  waded  to  the  throne  through  the  blood  of  Pekahiah. — The 
repetition  in  the  last  clause  intimates  that  even  these  extreme  evils  should 
be  followed  by  still  worse ;  that  these  were  but  the  beginning  of  soitows  ; 
that  the  end  was  not  jei. 


220  ISAIAH  X.  [Ykr.  1. 


CHAPTER  X. 

TuK  Prophet  first  completes  his  description  of  the  prevalent  iniquity,  with 
special  reference  to  iujiislice  and  oppression,  as  a  punishment  of  which  he 
threatens  death  and  deportation  by  the  hands  of  the  Assyrians,  vers.  1-4. 
He  then  turns  to  the  Assyrians  themselves,  God's  chosen  instruments,  whom 
he  had  commissioned  against  Israel  to  punish  and  degrade  it,  but  whose  own 
views  were  directed  to  universal  conquest,  to  illustrate  which,  the  Assyrian 
himself  is  introduced  as  boasting  of  his  tributary  princes  and  his  rapid  con- 
quests, which  had  met  with  no  resistance  fi-om  the  people  or  their  gods,  and 
threatening  Judah  with  a  like  fate,  unaware  of  the  destruction  which  awaits 
himself,  imputing  his  success  to  his  own  strength  and  wisdom,  and  glory- 
ing, though  a  mere  created  instrument,  over  his  maker  and  his  mover, 
vers.  5-15.  His  approaching  doom  is  then  described  under  the  figure  of  a 
forest  suddenly,  and  almost  totally  consumed  by  fire,  vers.  lG-19.  This 
succession  of  events  is  to  have  the  eilect  of  curing  the  propensity  to  trust  in 
man  rather  than  God,  at  least  among  the  elect  remnant  who  survive ;  for 
though  the  ancient  promises  of  great  increase  shall  certainly  be  verified, 
cmly  a  remnant  shall  escape  God's  righteous  judgments,  vers.  20-23.  To 
these  the  Prophet  now  addresses  words  of  strong  encouragement,  with  a  re- 
newed prediction  of  a  judgment  on  Assyria,  similar  to  that  on  Midiau  at 
Oreb,  and  on  Eg}-pt  at  the  Red  Sea,  which  is  then  described,  in  the  most 
vivid  manner,  by  an  exhibition  of  the  enemy's  approach,  from  post  to  post, 
until  he  stands  before  Jerusalem,  and  then,  with  a  resumption  of  the  meta- 
phor before  used,  his  destruction  is  described  as  the  prostration  of  a  forest 
— trees  and  thickets — by  a  mighty  axe,  vers.  24-34. 

It  is  commonly  agi-eed  that  the  close  of  the  chapter  relates  chiefly,  if  not 
wholly,  to  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army,  recorded  in  chap,  xxx-.-ii. 
3G.  The  exceptions  to  this  statement,  and  the  arguments  on  both  sides, 
will  be  given  in  the  exposition  of  ver.  28. 

For  the  best  illustration  of  the  geographical  details  in  vers.  28-82,  a 
general  reference  may  here  bo  given  to  llobiuson's  Palestine  (vol.  ii.  pp. 
104-151). 

1.  In  these  foiu-  verses,  as  in  the  diflerent  divisions  of  the  ninth  chap- 
ter, there  is  an  accusation  followed  by  a  threatening  of  punishment.  The 
sin  denounced  in  the  first  two  verses  is  that  of  oppression  and  injustice. 
The  punishment  threatened  is  desolation  by  a  foreign  foe,  and  its  eflfect, 
captivity  and  death.  Woe  unto  them  that  decree  decrees  of  injustice,  and  that 
uriie  oppression  ichich  they  have  jnescrihcd.  Many  interpreters  suppose  two 
difi'erent  kinds  of  public  functionaries  to  be  here  descril)ed,  viz.,  judges  or 
magistrates,  and  their  clerks  or  scribes  (Aben  Ezra,  Kimchi,  Abarbenel, 
Grotius,  Jimius),  or  evil  counsellors  and  sovereigns,  or  their  secretaries 
(Clericus),  or  civil  rulers  and  prophets  (Hcndewerk).  The  Piel  form  -I^Fl?  is 
explained  as  a  causative  by  Pagninus,  ]\Iontanus,  Yatablus,  and  Munstcr 
(jubent  scribere).  Others  suppose  the  distinction  to  be  simply  that  between 
enacting  and  recording.  But  the  more  common  and  probable  opinion  is, 
that  the  parallel  verbs  are  \\v\\\  substantially  synonymous,  as  Ppn  originally 
means  to  engrave,  or  inscribe  by  incision,"  wiiich  was  probably  the  oldest 
mode  of  writing.  Thus  the  Septuagint  renders  both  y^dfc-jct.  "  The  meta- 
phor of  uritin;/,  is  used  elsewhere  to  describe  the  decrees  and  providential 
purposes  of  God  (Isa.  Ixv.  6,  Job  xiii.  26).  Here  the  terms  may  include 
both  legislative  and  judicial  functions,  which  are  not  so  nicely  distinguished 


1 


Yer.  2,  3.]  ISAIAH  X.  221 

in  ancient  as  in  modern  tlieories  of  government.  The  divine  displeasure  is 
expressed  against  all  abuse  of  power.  The  primary  sense  of  pS  seems  to 
be  inanity  or  nonentity  ;  then  more  specifically,  the  absence  of  truth  and 
moral  goodness ;  and  still  more  positively  falsehood,  injustice,  wickedness 
in  general.  The  primary  import  of  ?oy  is  toil  or  painful  labour  ;  then  (like 
the  Greek  and  Latin  'zovoc,  laboio)  suffering,  vexation.  It  is  related  to  pX 
as  the  efiect  to  the  cause,  as  the  oppression  of  the  subject  to  the  injustice 
of  the  ruler.  The  proper  sense  of  both  words  is  retained  by  Cocceius  in  his 
version  (statuta  vaniUitis,  laborem  scribentibusj.  The  Masoretic  accents 
require  ?^V  to  be  governed  by  D"'3nD0  and  separated  from  Uns.  This 
makes  it  necessary  to  supply  a  relative  before  the  last  verb.  Otherwise  it 
would  be  more  natural  to  understand  D''3n30  as  a  title  of  office,  and  to  supiDly 
the  relative  before  ??2y.  This  is  pointed  out  by  Aben  Ezra  as  the  true  con- 
struction, and  Luther  accordingly  has  Schriftgelehrte  as  the  subject  of  both 
clauses.  Cocceius  makes  the  whole  refer  to  the  elders  of  the  people  or 
hereditary'  magistrates,  and  the  scribes  or  doctors  of  the  law,  by  whom  all 
public  matters  were  controlled  in  our  Savioui-'s  time.  By  the  jsj^.  Vpn  he 
understands  the  traditions  of  the  elders,  and  by  POy  the  yoke  which  they 
imposed  upon  the  conscience.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  Prophet  fs 
still  describing  the  evils  which  existed  in  his  oa;\ti  day,  although  not  peculiar 
to  it.  The  Piel  form  of  the  last  verb,  if  it  has  any  distinctive  meaning,  is  a 
frequentative,  and  indicates  repeated  and  habitual  action. 

2.  As  the  first  verse  describes  the  sinners  and  their  sin,  so  the  second 
sets  forth  its  efi'ect  upon  the  people.  To  turn  aside  (or  exclude)  from  jud(i- 
vient  the  weak,  and  to  take  aicay  (by  violence)  the  right  of  the  poor  (or  afflicted) 
of  my  people,  that  icidoics  may  be  (or  so  that  widows  are)  their  spoil,  and  the 
fatherless  they  plunder.     The  infinitive  indicates  the  tendency  and  actual 

efiect  of  their  conduct.  The  Septuagint  omits  the  preposition  and  governs 
judgment  by  the  verb  directly  (IxxX/vovt-j;  y.Bieiy  crroip^wi/).  This  forru  of  ex- 
pression frequently  occurs  in  the  sense  of  perverting  justice  or  doing  injustice 
(Deut,  xxvii.  19 ;  Lam.  iii.  25  ;  Exod.  xxiii.  6  ;  Deut.  xxvi.  19,  xxiv.  17 ; 
1  Sam.  viii.  3).  Nearly  allied  to  these,  in  form  and  meaning,  is  the  phi-ase 
to  turn  one  aside  in  judgment  (Prov.  xviii.  5)  or  in  the  gate,  as  the  place 
where  courts  were  held  in  eastern  towTis  (Amos  v.  12),  or  with  an  ellipsis 
of  the  second  noun  to  turn  the  person  aside,  i.  e.,  to  deprive  him  of  his 
right  by  false  judgment  (Mai.  iii.  5 ;  Isa.  xxix.  21),  or  with  an  ellipsis  of 
both  nouns  (Exod.  xxiii.  2).  But  the  phrase  here  used  is  to  turn  one  aside 
from  the  judgment,  and  seems  intended  to  express  not  so  much  the  idea  oi 
judging  wrongfully  as  that  of  refusing  to  judge  at  all.  "  Verus  sensus  est 
ut  arceant  pauperes  a  judicio,  vel  efficiant  ut  cadant  causa"  (Calvin).  The 
same  charge  is  brought  against  the  rulers  of  Judah  in  chap.  i.  23.  The 
expression  ofmyp)eople  intimates,  not  only  that  the  sufierers  were  Israelites, 
but  that  they  sustained  a  pecuHar  relation  to  Jehovah,  who  is  frequently 
described  in  Scripture  as  the  protector  of  the  helpless,  and  especially  o"f 
widows  and  orphans  (Ps.  Ixviii.  5).  The  second  verb  ('?TJ)  means  to  take 
away  by  violence,  and  may  here  be  understood  either  strictly,  or  figuratively 
in  the  sense  of  violating  justice,  as  the  Vulgate  expresses  it  (utvim  facerent 
causae  humilium). 

3.  The  wicked  rulers  are  themselves  addressed,  and  warned  of  an 
approaching  crisis,  when  they  must  be  deprived  of  all  that  they  now  glory 
in.  And  (though  you  are  now  powerful  and  rich)  xihat  ivill  you  do  in  the 
day  of  visitation,  and  in  the  ruin  (which)  shall  come  from  far  (though  all 


222  ISAIAH  X.  Ter.  4. 

may  appear  safe  at  home)  ?  To  ivhom  will  you  Jleefor  help,  and  xihcre  ivill 
you  leave  your  ylory  (for  safe  keeping)  ?  The  questions  imply  negation,  as 
if  he  had  said,  You  can  do  nothing  to  protect  yourselves,  there  is  no  place 
of  concealment  for  your  glory.  Junius  and  Tremellius  make  the  con- 
struction hypothetical — what  would  you  do  ? — to  whom  would  you  fly  ? — 
where  could  you  leave  '?  But  as  this  implies  that  the  contingency  alluded 
to  might  not  occur,  it  virtually  changes  a  threat  into  a  promise,  which 
would  here  he  out  of  place,  between  the  woe  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  1,  and 
the  menace  at  the  end  of  ver.  4.  By  the  day  of  visitation  Vitriuga  under- 
stands a  day  of  inspection  and  examination  ;  hut  this  is  a  modern  or  a 
technical  meaning  of  the  term.  Cocceius  understands  by  the  phrase,  here 
and  elsewhere,  even  in  Ps.  viii.  5,  the  time  when  God  should  be  incarnate, 
and  literally  visit  his  people  as  a  man.  According  to  the  usage  of  the  Old 
Testament,  the  day  of  visilalion  is  a  time  when  God  manifests  his  presence 
specially,  whether  in  mercy  or  in  wrath,  but  most  frequently  the  latter. 
nNIC  originally  signifies  a  noise  or  tumult,  and  is  therefore  peculiarly 
appropriate  to  the  ruin  caused  by  foreign  invasions,  such  as  those  of  the 
Assyrians  and  Babylonians,  which  appear  to  be  alluded  to.  NIQD  pmi^O  is 
properly  an  independent  clause — -fw)n  afar  it  ahall  come — but  in  order  to 
conform  the  expression  to  our  idiom,  a  relative  may  be  supplied  as  in  the 
English  version.  The  ?y  Kimchi  observes,  is  in  this  connection  simply 
equivalent  to  7^<.  The  idea  of  fleeing  for  help  is  expressed  by  the  same 
verb  and  noun  in  chap.  xx.  6.  By  113D  we  are  not  simply  to  understand 
nobility  (Musculus,  Forerius,  Henderson) — or  wealth  (Clericus,  Lowth, 
Rosenmiiller) — much  less  the  gains  of  oppression  and  injustice  (Jarchi) — 
least  of  all  their  idols  (Hendcwerk)  but  whatever  they  now  boasted  of  and 
tiTisted  in. 

4.  It  (your  glory)  does  not  bow  beneath  the  j)^i^oners,  and  (yet)  they  shall 
fall  beneath  the  slain — /.  e.  if  they  do  not  bow  under  the  captives  they  shall 
fall  under  the  slain — or,  such  of  them  as  do  not  bow,  &c.  Beneath  may 
either  be  strictly  understood  as  meaning  under  their  feet,  or  simply  among 
them.  Junius  and  Piscator  understand  it  to  mean  loieer  than  the  cnptives 
and  the  slain.  De  Dieu  and  Rosenmiiller  make  it  an  adverb  meaning 
doun.  Ewald  explains  it  to  mean  instead  of,  in  the  place  or  quality  of, 
equivalent  to  as — as  captives  and  as  slain.  Cocceius  and  Umbreit  make 
the  first  clause  inten-ogative — does  he  not  bow  among  the  captives  ? 
Kimchi,  De  Dieu,  Gesenius,  and  De  Wette,  render  TO!  without  me,  i.  e. 
having  forsaken  me,  or  being  forsaken  by  me  (Junius) — without  my  inter- 
position. Some  make  it  mean  unless,  refemng  to  what  goes  before — they 
can  do  nothing  but  bow,  &c.  (Ewald) — or  what  follows: — unless  one  bow, 
&c.  they  shall  fall,  &c.  The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate,  Castaho  and  Clericus, 
take  TO^  in  the  sense  of  lest  or  that  not,  and  continue  the  construction 
from  the  preceding  verse — where  will  ye  leave  your  glory,  that  ye  bow  not, 
&c.  Luther  adopts  the  same  construction,  but  connects  V"13  with  1133  in 
ver.  8.  Where  will  you  leave  your  glory,  that  it  bow  not  ?  &c.  This 
agrees  well  with  Henderson's  explanation  of  1133  as  meaning  nobility  or 
chief  men,  which  would  account  also  for  the  change  to  the  plural  form  in 
^^B\  De  Dieu  makes  1''DX  and  CJim  the  subjects  of  the  veibs — taking 
nnn  as  an  adverb  meaning  down  or  beneath — "  besides  that  the  captive 
sinks,  they  shall  fall  down  slain."  Knobel  suggests,  as  a  possible  con- 
struction, that  y"i3  may  mean  to  bow  doun  to  the  slaughter  as  in  chap. 
Ixv.  12,  in  which  case  both  verbs  would  express  the  idea  of  a  violent  death. 


Yek.  5.]  ISAIAH  X.  223 

On  the  whole,  the  most  natural  interpretation  of  this  difficult  and  much 
disputed  verse  is  that  which  explains  it  as  a  solemn  declaration  that  their 
glory  and  especially  their  noble  chiefs  must  either  go  into  captivity  or  fall 
in  battle.  The  concluding  formula — -for  all  this  his  ivrnlh  is  not  turned  hack 
and  still  his  hand  is  stretched  out — again  suggests  the  fearful  thought  that 
all  these  accumulated  judgments  would  be  insufficient  to  arrest  the  progress 
of  the  sinner  or  appease  the  wrath  of  God. 

5.  The  Assyrian  is  now  distinctly  brought  into  view,  as  the  instrument 
which  God  would  use  in  punishing  his  people.  But  instead  of  simply  exe- 
cuting this  task,  the  Assyrians  would  seek  their  own  ends  and  exceed  their 
commission,  and  for  this  they  must  themselves  be  punished.  The  Prophet 
begins  therefore  with  a  woe  against  them.  Woe  unto  Asshur  (the  Assyrian 
or  Assyria  itself),  ilie  rod  of  vuj  anger,  and  the  staff  in  their  (the  Assyrians') 
hand  is  my  indignation,  i.  e.  its  instrument.  According  to  Kimchi,  ''in  is 
merely  a  nsnp  pa''?,  or  particle  of  calling,  by  which  God  summons  the 
Ass3-rian  to  punish  Israel.  So  Munster  :  O  Assur  (veni  ut  sis)  virga,  &c. 
It  is  also  rendered  0  by  Pagninus,  Montanus,  Forerius,  Vatablus,  and 
Calvin,  who  suggests,  however,  that  it  may  be  taken  as  an  expression  of 
grief  [alas!)  on  God's  part,  at  the  necessity  of  punishing  his  people. 
Lowth  translates  it  Ho !  Do  Wette  Ha  !  But  the  analogy  of  ver.  1  and 
the  subsequent  threatenings  are  decisive  in  favour  of  the  common  version. 
A  pronoun  of  the  second  person  is  supplied  after  *in  by  Clei'icns  (vae  vobis, 
Assyrii),  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  (wehe  dir,  Assjiien),  while  De  Dieu  supplies 
the  substantive  verb  after  "W^^  (Heus  !  Assyria  est  virga,  &c.).  But  it  is 
simpler  to  connect  the  particle  as  usual  directly  with  the  noun,  as  in  the 
Septuagint  (oua/  'Acffuwo/;)  and  most  other  versions.  Junius,  Piscator,  and 
the  margin  of  the  English  Bible  give  to  the  second  vav  the  sense  of  for  or 
though,  which  is  needless  and  unauthorized.  The  Vulgate,  Aben  Ezra, 
Luther,  Calvin,  De  Dieu,  Vatablus,  and  Clericus,  take  NIH  as  a  demonstra- 
tive equivalent  to  hie,  ille,  ipse,  or  the  like.  Pagninus,  Cocceius,  Schmi- 
dius,  Vitringa,  Rosenmiiller,  treat  it  as  a  relative  (the  rod  ichich),  and 
Gesenius  gives  the  same  sense,  by  supposing  an  ellipsis  of  "i^J'X,  and 
making  i<in  the  substitute  or  index  of  the  verb  to  be.  For  DT*!!  Seeker 
reads  DV^  (^in  the  dag  of  my  urath),  a  mere  conjecture.  The  preposition 
is  omitted  by  Luther  and  Clericus  (est  manus  eorum).  The  words  NIH 
DT'n  are  rejected  by  Hitzig  and  Ewald  as  a  gloss,  on  the  ground  that  they 
render  the  two  clauses  inconsistent,  one  describing  Assj'ria  as  itself  the 
rod,  the  other  putting  a  rod  into  Assyria's  own  hand,  whereas  in  ver.  14 
Assyria  is  still  represented  as  the  rod  and  not  as  the  rod-bearer.  Hende- 
werk,  De  Wette,  and  Knobel,  avoid  the  conclusion  by  connecting  ^2N  t23K^ 
with  the  verb  to  he  supplied  in  the  second  clause — "  the  x'od  of  my  anger 
and  the  staff  of  my  indignation,  it  is  in  their  hand."  But  in  ver.  24  (cf. 
chap.  ix.  3)  Assyria  reappears  as  a  rod-bearer,  and  the  chief  point  and  beauty 
of  the  verse  before  us  lie  in  the  alleged  inconsistency  of  representing  the 
Assyrian,  by  whose  rod  the  Israelites  were  smitten,  as  himself  a  mere  rod 
in  the  hand  of  God.  Such  emendations  are  as  puerile  in  taste  as  they  are 
inconsistent  with  the  favourite  German  canon,  that  the  harder  readino  is 
presumptively  the  true  one.  Any  school-boy  can  expound  the  hardest 
passage  in  the  classics  by  omitting  what  he  pleases  on  the  score  of  incon- 
cinnity.  The  disputed  words  are  retained  by  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Hende- 
werk,  De  Wette,  Umbreit,  Knobel.  According  to  Junius,  Hendewerk,  and 
De  Wette,  ''Oyt  is  governed  by  HIOD  (the  staff  is  in  then-  hand  of  my  indig- 
nation),  and  Schmidius,  Clericus,  Eosenmiiller  and  Gesenius,  give  the 


224  ISAIAH  X.  [Vkr.  G-9. 

same  sense  by  repeating  nOJD  before  *oyT  (^.  d.  the  staflf  in  tlieir  band  is 
the  stall"  of  my  indignation).  The  Septuagint  connects  the  last  word  of 
this  verso  with  the  next  {rr,v  d^yr})/  /mov  a.'jroariXS). 

('}.  Upon  (or  against)  an  impious  nation  (/.  r.  Israel,  including  Ephraim 
and  ^\l(^ii\l)  will  I  send  him  (the  Assyrians),  and  ar/ainst  tlie  people  of  my 
unil/i  (/.  e.  the  people  that  provokes  it,  and  deserves  it,  and  is  to  experi- 
ence it)  I  irill  commission  him  (or  give  him  his  orders),  to  take  spoil  and  to 
seize  prey  (literally  to  spoil  spoil  and  to  prey  prey),  and  to  jilace  (or  render) 
it  (the  people)  a  trampliny  (a  thing  to  be  trodden  under  foot,  a  common 
figure  for  extreme  degradation),  lilce  the  mire  of  streets.  See  the  same 
comparison  in  chap.  v.  25,  and  Ps.  xviii.  43.  According  to  Cocceius,  the 
use  of  the  word  """IJ  in  application  to  Israel  implies  that  they  had  now  become 
gentiles  or  heathen.  iJut  the  word  seems  to  be  simply  used  as  a  poetical 
equivalent  to  DV.  On  the  meaning  of  ^3n,  vide  snpira  chap,  ix  IG.  Aben  Ezra, 
Lowth,  Gesenius,  and  others,  explain  people  of  my  wrath  as  meaning  simply 
the  people  at  whom  I  am  angiy  ;  but  a  stronger  meaning  seems  to  be  re- 
quired by  the  form  of  the  expression  and  the  context.  Cocceius,  with  per- 
verse ingenuity,  refers  the  sufSx  in  Tnny  to  ^V,  which  could  not  take  it  in 
construction,  and  translates  the  phrase  populum  excandescentice  menm,  im- 
plying that  they  were  (or  had  been)  his  people,  but  were  now  the  objects 
of  his  wrath.  The  Septuagint  changes  the  sense  by  omitting  "Tll^y  {tu>  I/xw 
XaS).  The  true  sense  is  not  ill  expressed  in  the  paraphrase  of  Forerius, 
populum  (ptem  duriter  tractare  decrevi.  Piscator  understands  by  ^3n  ''M  the 
Jews  exclusively,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Henderson,  who  argues  from 
vers.  9-11,  that  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  is  regarded  in  this  passage  as 
destroyed  already.  But,  as  Vitringa  had  before  observed,  the  Assyrians 
did  not  reduce  Judah  to  an  extreme  of  desolation,  and  in  Sennacherib's  in- 
vasion, Jerusalem,  though  pre-eminently  guilty,  was  unharmed.  Besides, 
the  connection  between  this  and  the  next  chapter  forbids  the  exclusive  re- 
ference to  Judah. 

7.  The  AssjTian  is  now  described  as  an  unconscious  instrument  in 
God's  hand,  and  as  entertaining  in  his  o\\-n  mind  nothing  but  ambitious  plans 
of  universal  conquest.  And  he  (Ass^Tia  personified,  or  the  king  of  Assyria) 
not  so  will  think  (will  not  imagine  for  what  purpose  he  was  raised  up,  or 
will  not  intend  to  execute  my  will),  and  his  heart  not  so  will  think  (or 
purpose) ;  for  (on  the  contrary')  to  destroy  (is)  in  his  heart,  and  to  cut 
off  nations  not  a  few,  i.  e.  by  a  litotes  common  in  Hebrew,  very  many  na- 
tions. According  to  Cocceius,  HDl^  p  N?  (from  HOI,  to  resemble)  means  he 
will  not  (or  does  not)  think  as  I  do.  But  the  sense  of  imagining  or  pur- 
posing appears  to  be  fully  justified  by  usage. 

8.  This  verse  introduces  the  proof  and  illustration  of  his  selfishness 
and  pride.  For  he  will  say  (or  giving  it  a  descriptive  form,  he  says)  are  not 
my  jninces  altoyether  kinys,  or  at  the  same  time  kings,  mere  princes  with 
respect  to  me,  but  kings  as  to  all  the  world  besides  ?  By  exalting  his  tri- 
butary princes  or  the  nobles  of  his  court,  he  magnifies  himself  the  more. 
The  oriental  monarchs,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  have  afl'ected  the 
title  of  Great  King  (Isa.  xxxN-i.  4  ;  Hos.  viii.  10),  and  King  of  kings  (Ezek. 
xxvi.  7;  Dan.  ii.  37),  corresponding  to  the  Greek  fciyu'/.oi  jSaaiXuc,  jSaaiXfTg 
jgaff/Xewv,  and  the  Persian  ilAJvjLi  This  is  the  more  oflensive  because 
such  titles  properlv  belong  to  God  alone  (Ps.  xcv.  3  ;  Dan.  ii.  47,  viii.  25  ; 
Mat.  V.  35). 

9.  Having  boasted  of  his  princes,  he  now  boasts  of  his  achievements. 


Ver.  lO.J  ISAIAH  X.  225 

Is  not  Cahio  like  Carchemish  ?  Have  they  not  been  equally  subdued  by 
me  ?  Or  is  not  Hammath  like  Arpad  /  Or  is  not  Samaria  like  Damascus  ? 
Similar  boastings  were  uttered  by  Habshakeh  (chap,  xxxvi.  19,  20,  xxxvii.  12, 
13).  These  conquests  wei'e  the  more  remarkable  because  so  speedily  achieved, 
and  because  the  Assyrians  had  before  confined  themselves  within  their  own 
Umits.  All  the  towns  named  were  farther  north  than  Jerusalem  and  pro- 
bably commanded  the  navigation  of  the  two  great  rivers,  Tigris  and  Eu- 
phrates. Carchemish  was  a  fortified  town  on  an  island  in  the  Euphrates, 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Chaboras,  called  by  the  Greeks  Ki^xrisiov,  and  in  Latin 
Cercusium.  It  had  its  o^^•n  king  (Isa.  xxxvii.  13)  and  its  own  gods  (Isa. 
xxxvi.  19),  and  was  taken  by  Tiglath-pileser  (2  Kings  xv.  29).  Calno  was 
the  Ctesiphon  of  the  Greeks,  on  the  east  bank  of  the  Tigris  opposite  Se- 
leucia.  It  is  identified  by  Kimchi  with  the  Calneh  of  Gen.  x.  10,  and  by 
Bochart  with  the  Canneh  of  Ezek.  xx^-ii.  23.  Hamath  was  a  city  of  S}-ria, 
on  the  Orontes,  the  mouth  of  which  river,  according  to  Keith  (Land  of  Is- 
rael, chap.  ii.  §  3),  is  the  entering  into  Hamath,  sometimes  mentioned  as  the 
northern  boundary  of  Canaan  in  its  widest  extent  (Num.  xxxiv.  8;  Jos.  xiii. 
5).  It  was  called  by  the  Greeks  Epiphania.  Abulfeda,  the  Ai'abian  his- 
torian, reigned  there  about  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century.  It  is 
now  one  of  the  largest  to\Mis  in  Asiatic  Turkey,  having  about  100,000  in- 
habitants. Arpad,  another  town  of  Sj'ria,  near  Hamath,  with  which  it  is 
several  times  named.  Junius  and  Paulus  regard  it  as  the  name  of  a  region. 
Grotius,  Doderlein,  and  others,  confound  it  with  Arvad  in  Phenicia  (Gen. 
X.  8)  ;  but  none  of  the  ancient  versions  do  so,  and  1  is  not  interchangeable 
with  S.  It  is  mentioned  last  in  Jer.  xlix.  23,  and  is  probably  no  longer  in 
existence.  According  to  Jerome,  there  were  two  Hamaths,  one  the  same 
with  Epiphania,  the  other  with  Antioch,  the  Hamath  Rabba  of  Amos  vi.  2. 
Vitringa  supposes  the  Hamath  here  mentioned  to  be,  not  the  Epiphania,  but 
the  Emesa  (or  Emissa)  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  WTiters.  The  latest  au- 
thorities are  all  in  favour  of  the  other  explanation.  According  to  Jarchi, 
the  Assyrian  in  this  verse  is  still  boasting  of  his  tributaries — "  as  the  sons  of 
Carchemish  are  princes  and  rulers,  so  are  those  of  Calno  " — which  is  alto- 
gether arbitrar\\  The  Targum,  followed  by  Aben  Ezra,  Calvin,  and  Gill, 
refers  the  questions  of  this  verse  to  the  future.  Shall  not  Calno  be  as 
Carchemish  /  /.  e.  as  I  have  subdued  Carchemish,  shall  I  not  in  like  manner 
subdue  Calno  ?  But  the  gi'eat  majority  of  writers  understand  the  passage  as 
explained  above,  although  they  diifer  in  the  form  of  their  translations. 
Some  adhere  strictly  to  the  form  of  the  original  without  supplying  anything 
(Vulgate,  Calvin,  Cocceius,  Vitringa).  Some  supply  the  present  of  the 
verb  to  he  (Luther,  Piscator,  Clericus,  Lowth,  Barnes,  Henderson,  Ewald, 
Knobel).  Some  introduce  another  verb — shall  it  not  perish  (Aben  Ezra) — 
did  it  not  happen  (ging's  nicht  ?  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  Umbreit). 
J.  D.  Michaelis  omits  the  interrogation,  and  the  Peshito  substitutes  behold  ! 
— 1<?  DN,  as  usual,  continues  the  interrogative  introduced  by  N^H  (Nordhei- 
mer,  §  1090,  4,  a).  It  is  most  exactly  rendered  or  not  (oder  nicht),  by 
Hendewerk,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit — less  exactly,  as  a  simple  interrogative 
without  negation,  by  Luther,  Lowth,  Barnes,  and  Henderson — as  a  negative 
interrogation,  but  without  expressing  DN,  by  Hitzig  and  Vitringa — as  a 
mere  disjunctive  (oder)  by  Gesenius. 

10.  As  my  hand  hath  found  {i.  e.  reached  and  seized)  the  idol-kingdoms 
(worshippers  of  idols) — and  their  images  (Anghce,  whose  images  were  more) 
than    (those  of)  Jerusalem  and  Samaria — the  apodosis   of  the   sentence 

VOL.  I.  p 


226  ISAIAH  X.  [Ver.  11. 

follows  in  the  next  verse.     Barnes  explains  found  as  meaning  found  (hem 
helpless;  and  J.  H.  MichacVis,  found  strenf/th  (o  subdue  (hem;  both  which 
are  forced  and  arbitrary.     Gesenius,  Maurer,  Umbreit,  suppose  it  to  mean 
struck,  as  an  arrow  //Vk/s  the  mark;  but  this  idea  is  rather  implied  than  ex- 
pressed, both  here  and  in  Ps.  xxi.  9,  1  Sam.  xxiii.  17.     The  ideas  natur- 
ally suggested  are  those  of  detecting  and  reaching.     The  original  import  of 
?vK  is  retained  in  translation  by  Cocceius  and  Yitringa  (regna  nihili),  both 
of  -whom  however  understand  it  to  mean  idols.     The  singular  form  is  re- 
tained by  Theodotion  [tov  tiduiXov),  the  Vulgate  (regna  idoli),  and  Umbreit 
(des  Gotzen).     Ewald  renders  the  whole  phrase  Gu(zen- Lander.     Cocceius 
supposes  that  in  using  this  expression,  the  king  of  Assyria  is  made  to  speak 
rather  in  the  person  of  a  Jew  than  in  his  own  (pro  eo  quod  rcquirebat 
TO  TgETov  personae,  substituitur  quod  requirit  Veritas  rei).     Grotins  under- 
stands him  to  express  contempt  of  these  foreign  gods  as  in  their  nature 
inferior  to  his  own;  but  the  reference  is  rather  to    their  having  proved 
imable  to  protect  their  votaries.     The  heathen  nations  of  antiquity  do  not 
seem  to  have  denied  the  real  existence  and  divinity  of  one  another's  gods, 
but  merely  to  have  claimed  superior  honours  for  their  own. — Instead  of  the 
comparative  sense  (han,  the  Vulgate  gives  to  P  its  local  sense  oifrom  (de), 
which  seems  to  mean  that  the  idols  of  the  kingdoms  were  derived  from 
Israel,  a  fact  which  Jarchi  does  not  scruple  to  assert,  though  not  only  un- 
supported but  directly  contradicted  by  all  history.    Vatablus  gives  the  same 
construction  but  refers  the  words,  with  less  improbability,  to  the  inferior 
and  dependent  towns  of  Israel,  as  having  learned  idolatry  from  the  royal 
cities.     On  the  whole,  however,  though  the  sentence  is  at  best  obscure,  the 
most  satisfactory  construction,  both  in  a  grammatical  and  historical  point  of 
view,  is  that  adopted  by  the  great  majority  of  writers,  not  excepting  the 
most  learned  of  the  Rabbins,  David  Kimchi,  and  which  takes  \'0  as  a  par- 
ticle of  comparison.     Kimchi  and  Calvin  govern  Sarr.aria  and  Jerusalem 
directly  by  the  preposition  ;  most  other  writers  repeat  images  before  them. 
The  point  of  the  comparison  is  not  expressed  in  the  original ;  those  versions 
are  too  definite  which  render  it  more  numerous,  more  precious,  or  more 
powerful,  as  all  these  particulars  may  be  included.     The  second  clause 
is  parenthetical,  and  disturbs  the  structure  of  the  sentence  by  leaving  the 
comparison,  with  which  it  opens,  incomplete,  although  the  remainder  is 
sufficiently  implied  in  the  parenthesis  itself.  As  my  hand  ha(h found  (he  idol- 
kingdoms  [so  shall  it  find  Samaria  and  Jei'usaUm].    This,  which  would  seem 
to  be  the  natural  apodosis,  is  formerly  excluded  but  substantially  supplied  by  the 
last  clause  of  the  sentence  as  it  stands.    As  if  he  had  said,  "  Since  my  hand 
has  found  the  idol-kingdoms  whose  images  exceeded  those  of  Jerusalem  and 
Samaria,  much  more  shall  it  find  Jerusalem  and  Samaria  themselves."     But 
instead  of  protasis  without  an  apodosis,  Gesenius  and  Maurer  describe  the 
sentence  as  a  double  protasis  with  one  apodosis.     "As  my  hand  has  found 
the  idol-kingdoms  (whose  images  exceeded  those  of  Jerusalem  and  Samaria), 
and  as  I  have  done  to  Samaria  itself,  shall  I  not,  itc."     This  supposes 
Samaria  to  be  regarded,  even  in  ver.  10,  as  already  conquered. 

11.  Shall  I  not,  as  I  have  done  to  Samaria  and  to  her  idols,  so  do  to 
Jerusalem  and  her  gods?  The  interrogative  participle,  which  properly 
belongs  to  the  second  verb,  is  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  in 
order  to  give  prominence  to  its  interrogative  form,  which  involves  an  affir- 
mation of  the  strongest  kind.  This  effect  is  wholly  neutralized  by  rendering 
KPn  viuch  more  (Piscaior),  furthermore  (Hendewerk),  yes  (Ewald),  ot  behold 
(Gesenius,  Hitzig).     Because  an  interrogative  construction  is  employed  in 


Vee.  12.]  ISAIAH  X.  227 

Hebrew  where  in  other  tongues  a  simple  exclamation  would  be  used,  it  does 
not  follow  that  the  one  can  be  substituted  for  the  other  without  doing 
violence  to  the  usage  and  genius  of  the  language.     The  facts  alleged  by 

Gesenius  (in  his  Thesaurus,  s.  v.),  that  ^^H,  as  used  in  the  Books  of 
Kings,  is  generally  changed  in  Chronicles  to  Hjn,  and  that  the  Septuagint 
frequently  translates  the  former  'ibn-j,  may  prove  a  change  of  idiomatic  usage, 
but  cannot  change  the  meaning  of  i^?n  itself,  or  make  that  meaning  less 
acceptable  to  every  unsophisticated  taste  than  the  arbitrary  substitute  pro- 
posed. Still  moi'e  objectionable  is  the  omission  of  i^^H  altogether.  Luther, 
Vitringa,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  give  the  verb  in  this  interrogation,  a  sub- 
junctive form, — maij,  mighty  couhl,  or  should  I  not  do?  It  is  best,  however, 
to  retain  the  simple  future,  as  most  writers  do. — The  English  Version  and 

some  others  use  the  same  word  to  translate  Hv^'PN*  and  iT'S^y,  which  are  in 
fact  sj'nonymous,  although  the  latter  signifies  originallj'  trouble,  sorrow,  with 
reference  perhaps  to  the  ultimate  efiect  of  image  worship  on  the  worshippers. 
The  two  words  are  differently  rendered  by  the  Septuagint  (■^sisoToi7]Toig, 
s'lBoJXoig),  the  Vulgate  (idolis,  simulacris),  the  Targum,  Junius,  Vitringa, 
Gesenius,  Ewald,  Lowth  (idols,  images). 

12.  To  the  boastful  speech  of  the  Assp-ian  succeeds  a  prediction  of  his 

late.     Although  he  had  been   suifered  to   proceed  so  far,  and  would  be 

suffered  to  proceed  still  further,  in  the  work  of  subjugation,  till  he  reached 

the  veiy  verge  of  Zion  and  the  portals  of  Jerusalem ;  God  had  determined 

that  the  work  should  go  no  further,  but  be  there  cut  short  by  the  infliction 

of  a  signal  vengeance  on  the  selfishness  and  pride  of  the  invader.     And  it 

shall  he  {i.  e.  the  end  of  all  his  glorying  shall  be)  that  the  Lord  will  cut  all 

his  work  short  at  mount  Zion  and  at  Jerusalem.     (Yes,  even  there)  loill  1 

visit  {i.  e.  manifest  my  presence  for  the  purpose  of  inflicting  punishment)  on 

the  fruit  (or  outward   exhibition)  of  the  greatness  of  heart  (i.  e.  arrogance 

and  pride)  of  the  king  of  Assyria,  and  on  the  orientation  (or  display)  of 

his  loftiness  of  eyes  (or  looks,  a  common  Scriptural  expression  for  great 

haughtiness.      His  work  may  mean  the  Assyrian's  work   of  conquest,   or 

the  Lord's  own  work  of  punishment,   in  reference  either  to  Assp'ia  or 

Israel.     Either  of  these  senses  may  be  preferred  without  effect  upon  the 

meaning  of  the  sentence.     By  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army,  God 

may  be  said  to  have  cut  short  the  work  of  that  invader,  or  to  have  cut  short 

his  own  work  by  accomplishing  his  purpose  of  destruction,  or  to  have  cut 

short  his  own  work  of  punishing  his  people,  by  relieving  them  from  danger. 

The  last  of  these  senses  may,  however,  be  retained,  and  yet  the  general 

meaning  of  the  first  clause  wholly  altered,  as  is  actually  done  by  nearly  all 

interpreters,  who  take  ''4>  in  the  sense  of  when,  and  read  the  clause  as  it  is 

rendered  in  the  English  Bible.      It  shall  come  to  pass,  ivhen  the  Lord  hath 

•performed  Ids  ivhole  work  on  mount  Zion  and  in  Jerusalem,  that  I  will  punish 

&e.,  i.e.  the  instrument  of  punishment  shall  be  destroyed  as  soon  as  it  has 

done  its  work.     According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  the  completion  of 

God's  work  upon  mount   Zion  is  a  previous  condition  of  his  punishing 

Assyria ;  according  to  the  other,  the  completion  and  the  punishment  are 

one  and  the  same  thing.     The  former  interpretation  is  that  unanimously 

given  by  all  writers  known  to  me,  excepting  Hitzig,  who  adopts  a  singular 

construction  of  his  own,  disregarding  the  accents  and  connecting  in  mount 

Zion  and  Jerusalem  with  the  second  clause.      He  gives  to   ''3,  however, 

like  the  rest,  its  more  unfrequent  sense  oiivhen,  whereas  the  first  intei'pre- 

tation  above  stated  makes  it  as  usual  equivalent  to  6V/.      The  principal 


228  ISAIAH  X.  [Ver.  13. 

objection  to  this  new  construction,  next  to  the  gi-cat  weight  of  authority 
against  it,  is  the  meaning  which  it  puts  upon  the  preposition  before  Zioii 
and  Jerusalem.  This,  it  is  said,  can  only  mean  nitltiii  the  walls,  and  can- 
not therefore  have  respect  to  the  destruction  of  the  host  uithont.  But  the 
preposition  sometimes  denotes  mere  proximity,  even  when  ])relixed  to  nouns 
denoting  place,  e.{).  PV^  at  the  fountain,  1  Sam.  xxix.  1,  ">2D  "^33  by  the 
river  of  Chebar,  Ezek.  x.  15,  and  3li;  "11 V3  at  the  rock  Oreb,  in  this  very 
chapter,  ver.  2G.  (See  Geseuius's  Thesaurus,  tom.  i.  p.  17*2.)  To  the 
common  explanation  it  may  be  objected  that  V)iy  does  not  mean  simply  to 
finish,  but  to  finish  abruptly  or  cut  short  (Isa.  xxxviii.  12  ;  Job.  vi.  9), 
which  is  certainly  not  so  appropriate  to  the  deliberate  execution  of  a  pur- 
pose as  to  its  sudden  interruption.  It  is  true  that  according  to  Cocceius, 
Vitringa,  and  Gesenius  (in  Thesauro),  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  weaver's 
cutting  out  the  web  when  it  is  finished ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient 
gi-ound  for  this  assertion.  J.  D.  IMjchaelis  and  Gesenius  translate  "ipQN  as 
a  third  person,  which  removes  the  appearance  of  grammatical  irregularity, 
but  only  by  the  sacrifice  of  strict  adherence  to  the  form  of  the  original, 
which,  when  attainable,  adds  gi'eatly  to  the  value  of  a  version,  but  iu 
point  of  utility  and  taste.  In  this  case  the  enallage  is  highly  emphatic — 
"  the  Lord  will  cut  short" — yes,  "  I  will  visit."  There  is  the  same  objec- 
tion to  the  gi-atuitous  omission  of  "TTII  by  Luther.  Clericus,  Piscator,  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  Gesenius,  Henderson,  and  Ewald.  That  phrase  is  not  an 
idiomatic  pleonasm,  or  intended  to  determine  the  futurity  of  what  directly 
follows — but  an  emphatic  clause  connecting  this  verse  with  the  one  before 
it — q.d.  such  are  ihe  boasts  and  such  the  expectations  of  Assyria,  but  it 
shall  be,  i.e.  the  end  shall  be,  the  end  of  all  this  glorying  and  of  all  these 
threats  shall  be,  that  the  Lord  uill  cut  shoit,  &c.  J.  D.  MichaeHs  is  singu- 
lar in  giving  to  the  verb  IpSN  the  sense  of  lookintj  daun  upon  (wird  er 
herabbhcken).  Here,  as  in  chap  ix.  8,  greatness  of  heart  is  a  temper  oppo- 
site to  that  of  the  louh/  in  heart  and  ihe  jwor  in  spirit,  who  are  represented 
in  the  New  Testament  as  pecuharly  acceptable  to  God  (Mat.  v.  3;  xi.  29). 
According  to  Henderson,  there  is  an  implied  antithesis  between  the  looks 
considered  as  the  leaves  and  the  actions  as  the  fruit  of  the  same  tree,  all 
which  is  more  ingenious  than  natural.  Gesenius  and  Maurer  seem  to 
restrict  the  meaning  of  mNSn  to  mere  ostentation  and  parade;  but  it  is 
best  to  take  it  in  a  wider  sense,  as  including  all  the  outward  manifestations 
of  an  arrogant  spirit. 

13.  The  Assyrian  is  again  introduced  as  speaking,  and  as  arrogating  to 
himself  the  two  most  necessary  qualities  of  a  successful  ruler,  to  wit,  energy 
and  wisdom,  military  prowess  and  political  sagacity.  The  last  clause  gives 
the  proofs  of  the  assertion  in  the  first,  and  mentions  tln-ee  things  which  the 
boasters  had  disposed  of  at  his  pleasure,  pohtical  arrangements,  money,  and 
men.  For  he  saith  (in  heart  and  life,  if  not  in  words)  by  the  strength  of  nnj 
(own)  hand  I  hare  done  (all  this),  and  by  my  (own)  uisdow,  for  I  am  wise 
(as  well  as  strong),  and  (in  the  exercise  of  these  two  attributes)  /  remove 
the  bounds  oj  the  nations,  and  rob  their  hoards,  and  briny  down,  like  a  miyhty 
man  (as  I  am),  the  inhabitants.  J.  H.  Michaelis  takes  'n^"y  in  the  sense 
of  makiny  gain  or  profit,  as  in  Ezek.  xxviii.  4  ;  but  it  is  better  to  translate 
it,  I  have  done,  and  understand  it  as  referring  to  the  scries  of  successes 
just  before  enumerated.  — Cocceius  and  Vitringa  make  the  next  clause 
mean,  it  is  through  viy  wisdom  that  1  have  acted  prudently,  a  construction 
far  inferior,  in  simplicity  and  strength,  to  the  obvious  and  common  one 
proposed  above.     The  removing  of  the  bounds  appears  to  be  explained 


Ver.  14.]  ISAIAH  X.  229 

in  the  Targum  as  descriptive  of  his  conquering  progress  from  one  pro- 
vince to  another  (N^HD?  Nn>3D) ;  but  the  true  sense  is  the  more  specific 
one  of  destroying  the  distinctions  between  nations  by  incorporation  in  a 
single  empire.  DnTllTTiy  is  variously  rendered  by  ithe  Septuagint  {rriv 
layj/v  ai/rwi'),  Junius  (instructissima  loca  eorum),  and  Cocceius  (et  fixa 
eorum),  but  according  to  its  etymology  denotes  things  laid  up  or 
kept  in  store  for  future  use ;  hence  treasures,  with  particular  refer- 
ence to  their  being  hoarded.  The  Keri  "f^S  for  T'lliO  is  unnecessary,  as 
the  3  in  the  latter  is  a  caijh  veritatis,  denoting  comparison,  not  with  some- 
thing wholly  different,  but  to  the  class  to  which  the  thing  itself  belongs. 
Thus  like  a  mighty  man  does  not  imply  that  the  person  spoken  of  was  not 
of  that  description,  but  that  he  was — "  like  a  mighty  man  or  hero  as  I  am," 
As  the  primary  meaning  of  '^^''  is  to  sit,  some  writers  explain  D''31^''  as 
meaning  those  who  sit  on  high  (Vulgate,  J.  D.  Michaelis),  or  on  thrones 
(Gesenius,  Hendewerk,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Ivuobel),  and  ^m"iin  iu  the  sense 
of  displacing  or  dethroning.  There  is  no  necessity,  however,  for  departing 
from  the  less  poetical  but  more  famihar  sense,  inhabitants  and  bringing 
down,  i.e.  subduing. 

14.  The  rapidity  and  ease  of  the  Assyrian  conquests  is  expressed  by  a 
natural  and  beautiful  comparison.  In  seizing  on  the  riches  of  the  nations, 
the  conqueror  had  encountered  no  more  difficult}'  than  if  he  had  been 
merely  taking  eggs  from  a  forsaken  nest,  without  even  the  impotent  resist- 
ance which  the  bird,  if  present,  might  have  offered,  by  its  cries  and  by  the 
flapping  of  its  wings.  My  hand  has  found  (/.  e.  reached  and  seized)  the 
strength  (or  more  specifically,  the  pecuniary  strength,  the  wealth)  of  the 
nations,  and  like  the  gathering  of  (or  as  one  gathers)  eggs  forsaken ,  so  have  I 
gathered  all  the  earth  {i.  e.  all  its  inhabitants  and  their  possessions),  and 
there  ivas  none  that  moved  a  iring,  or  opened  a  month,  or  chirped. — The 
present  form,  which  Hendewerk  adopts  throughout  the  verse,  is  equally 
gi-ammatical,  but  less  in  keeping  with  the  context,  which  seems  to  represent 
the  speaker  as  describing  not  his  habits  but  his  past  exploits.  Clericus 
renders  ''^H  by  moenia,  as  being  the  strength  or  defences  of  a  beseiged  city, 
and  the  Vulgate  takes  it  as  an  abstract  meaning  strength  itself,  which  is  its 
primary  import ;  but  interpreters  are  generally  agreed  in  giving  it  the  more 
specific  sense  of  wealth,  or  strength  derived  from  property,  an  idea  which 
seems  to  be  more  fully  expressed  by  our  word  substance.  The  meaning  of 
Q^oy  is  here  again  obscured  in  the  English  Version  by  the  use  of  the 
singular  form  people,  for  which  Lowth  has  substituted  peoples,  thereby  con- 
veying the  true  sense  of  the  original,  but  at  the  same  time  violating  the 
prevalent  usage  of  the  English  language.  Hitzig  gives  to  aNVO  the  sense 
of  reaching  after ;  but  according  to  usage  and  the  common  judgment  of  in- 
terpreters, the  particle  is  here  a  mere  connective  of  the  verb  and  object. 
The  infinitive  construction  ^DX3  is  expressed  in  the  passive  form  by  the 
Vulgate  (sicut  coUiguntur),  Calvin,  Clericus,  and  Vitringa,  and  as  a  verb  of 
the  first  person  by  Junius  (quasi  reciperem),  and  Cocceius  (quasi  auferrem), 
but  as  an  indefinite  construction  by  Luther  (wie  man  aufrafft),  and  most 
modern  writers.  The  pronoun  before  "TISDN  is  omitted  in  some  versions 
as  unnecessary  to  the  sense,  but  it  is  for  that  very  reason  emphatic,  and 
adds  to  the  boastful  tone  of  the  Assyrian's  language.  Fiirst  and  Ewald 
follow  some  of  the  Rabbins  in  making  T13,  which  is  elsewhere  intransitive, 
agree  with  ^^3  (flatterden  Fliigels),  which  is  itself  construed  adverbially  by 
Calvin  (qui  abigei'et  ala)  and  Cocceius  (divagans  ala).     The  construction  of 


280  •  ISAIAH  X.  [Ykr.  15. 

f)XQVD  as  a  genind  by  Clericus  (ad  pipiendiim),  and  Gcscnius  (zum  Gezirp), 
is  a  needless  departure  from  the  form  of  the  original.     The  word  jx'eped 
(pipio)  used  in  the  English  Version  is  not  only  obsolete,  but  liable  to  be 
confounded  with  another  of  like  form  from  another  root.     (See  Richardson's 
English  Dictionary,  vol.  i.  p.  1433.)     The  trrms  of  the  last  clause  may  bo 
understood  as  having  reference  to  young  birds ;  but  in  that  case  there  are 
two  distinct  comparisons  confusedly  mingled  in  one  sentence.     In  either 
case  the  language  is  designed  to  be  descriptive  of  entire  non-resistance  to 
the  progress  of  the  Assyrian  conquests,  and  although  designedly  exagger- 
ated in  expression,  agrees  well  w'ith  the  historical  statements,  not  only  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  of  Ctesias,Berosus,  Herodotus,  Diodorus,  Justin,  and  Trogup. 
15.  Yet  in  all  this  the  Assyrian  was  but  an  instniment  in  God's  hand, 
and  his  proud  self-confidence  is  therefore  as  absurd  as  if  an  axe,  or  a  saw, 
or  a  rod,  or  a  stafi',  should  exalt  itself  above  the  person  wielding  it.     Shall 
the  axe  olorijij  itself  above  the  (person)  heniiiff  uith  it  /      Or  shall  the  naiv 
tnar/nifi/   itself  above  the   (person)   handlinri  it  ?     (This   is   indeed)   like  a 
rod's  iviehliiit/  those  irho  ivield  it,  Wee  a  staff's  lifting  (that  which  is)  no  wood 
(viz.  a  man).     The  idea  is  not  merely  that  of  boastful  opposition  but  of 
preposterous  inversion  of  the  tnie  relation  between  agent  and  instrument, 
between  mind  and  matter. — The  potential  form  mayor  can  the  axe  (Luther, 
Clericus,  J.  D.  Michaclis),  and  the  present  form  does  the  axe  (Gesenius, 
Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  De  Wette,  Ewald),  although  not  incorrect,  are  less 
emphatic   than  the  future  proper,  s/ta/Z  the  axe  glorifi/ itself  /  «',  e.  shall  it 
be  sufiered  so  to  do  ?     Would  not  such  assumption,  if  it  were  possible,  be 
intolerable  ?     Barnes  corrects  the  common  version  by  omitting  the  reflexive 
pronoun   after  boast ;  but  "INSn''  does   not   simply  mean  to  use   boastful 
language,  but  by  boasting  to  exalt  one's  self  in  comparison  with  others 
(Judges  vii,  2).     The  preposition  ^V  therefore  does  not  mean  merely  in  the 
presence  of  (Hitzig),  nor  even  against  (English  Bible),  but  should  have  its 
proper  sense  of  over  or  above,     Lowth,  Barnes,  and  Henderson  omit  the  or 
before  the  second  question,  perhaps  because  the  English  Bible  gives  it  in 
italics ;  but  the  Hebrew  word  has  often  a  disjunctive  meaning,  when  pre- 
ceded in  construction  by  the  common  inteiTogative  particle.     A  figurative 
sense   is   put  upon   '?'^J^'' by  Luther  (trotzen),  Gesenius(brUstet),  and  the 
later  German  writers  ;  but  the  literal  version  viafinify   itself  is  perfectly 
intelligible,  and  retains  the  precise  form  of  the  original.     ^"'^H  is  variously 
rendered  draw  (Septuagint,  Vulgate),  shake  Calvin),  guide  (Cocceius),  move 
(Clericus),   &c.     The  essential  idea  is  that  of  motion,  determined  and 
quahfied  by  the  nature  of  the  thing  moved.     The  Hebrew  verb  is  specially 
appropriated  to  denote  the  handling  or  wielding  of  a  tool  or  implement 
(Deut.  xxiii.  25,  xxviii.  5;  Exod.  xx,  25).    Piscator,  Gataker,  and  others  take 
the  3  before  the  verbs  of  the  last  clause  as  a  specification  of  time — uJien  one 
shakes  a  rod  or  uhen  a  staf  is  lifted  up — but  this  construction,  although 
Dot   ungrammatical,   introduces   several  very   harsh   ellipses.      A   writer 
quoted  by  Vatablus  takes  the  double  3  as  the  sign  of  a  comparison,  as — .so, 
but  this  would  be  comparing  a  thing  merely  with  itself.     Most  interpreters 
follow  the  Septuagint  version  in  rendering  the  particle  as  if.     This  is  no 
doubt  the  sense,  but  the  precise  construction  is  like  the  lifting  of  a  r.tnjf, 
not  in  the  passive  sense  of  being  lifted  (w;  civ  rig  asr]  IdlSdov),  but  in  the 
active   one  of  lifting  something  else,  like  a  rod's  lijting  those  who  lift  it. 
The  construction  which  makes  ns  a  proposition  meaning  in  the  power  of, 
dependent  on,  is  arbitrary  in  itself  and  does  not  yield  so  good  a  sense. 
The  Vulgate,  the  Peshito,  and  the  English  Version,  give  ^'''^>^  a  reflexive 


Vek.  16.J  ISAIAH  X.  231 

sense,  and  either  read  ^V  for  HX,  or  take  the  latter  in  the  sense  of  ar/ainst, 
as  Calvin  and  Piscator  do.  The  margin  of  the  English  Bible  gives  another 
version,  which  is  that  of  Junius  and  Cocceius,  and  the  one  now  commonly- 
adopted  as  the  simplest  and  most  natm-al. — Gesenius,  Hitzig,  De  Wette, 
Ewald,  Umbreit,  Knobel,  make  VJ^no  a  pluralis  majestaticus  designed  to 
enhance  the  contrast  between  mind  and  matter.  It  is  much  more  natural, 
however,  to  explain  it  as  a  plui'al  proper,  as  is  done  by  Maurer,  Hende- 
werk,  and  Henderson. — As  examples  of  misplaced  ingenuity  I  add,  that 
J.  D.  Michaelis  (in  his  Notes  for  the  Unlearned)  explains  ^"^^  as  the  stock 
or  handle  in  distinction  from  the  iron  of  the  axe  or  saw,  and  that  De  Dieu 
proposes  to  take  D''"ir?  as  the  plural  of  "in,  a  mountain — "  as  if  the  staflf 
were  mountains,  not  a  piece  of  wood" — a  construction  which  is  not  only 
forced,  but  inconsistent  with  the  strict  correspondence  of  ^l^JriD  and  D''"in3. 
The  same  objection  Ues  against  Forerius's  construction  of  the  last  clause — 
"  as  if  the  lifting  of  a  staff  (were)  not  (the  lifting  of)  a  piece  of  ivoociy — 

Junius,  Cocceius,  and  most  later  writers,  understand  XV7^^  as  a  peculiar 

idiomatic  compound  (like  "?^'N?  and  ^V'Vb,  Deut.  xxxii.  21,  £J'''X"N7  and 

D']N:"N'?  Isa.  xxsi.  8,  comp.  Jer,  v.  7),  meaning  that  which  is  very  far  from 
being  wood,  of  an  opposite  nature  to  wood,  i.  e.  according  to  Cocceius  and 
Henderson,  God  himself,  but  more  correctly  man,  since  the  case  supposed 
is  that  of  a  man  brandishing  a  rod  or  staff,  the  relation  between  them  being 
merely  used  to  illustrate  that  between  Jehovah  and  Assyria,  considered  as 
his  instrument.     The  last  clause  of  this  verse  has  not  only  been  very  vari- 
ously explained  by  modern  -^Titers,  but  given  gi-eat  difficulty  to  the  old 
translators,  as  appears  from  their  inconsistent  and  unmeaning  versions  of  it. 
16.  Therefore  (on  account  of  this  impious  self-confidence),  the  Lord,  the 
Lord  of  hosts,  will  send  upon  his  fat  ones  leanness,  and  under  liis  f/lory  shall 
burn  a  burning  like  the  burning  of  fire.     The  accumulation  of  divine  names 
calls    attention    to    the    source  of  the  threatened  evil,   and  reminds  the 
Assp'ian  that  Jehovah  is  the  only  rightful  Sovereign  and  the  God  of  Battles. 
This  combination  occurs  nowhere  else,  and  even  here  above  fifty  manu- 
scripts and  twelve  pi-inted  editions  read  niiT'  for  ''31N,  and  thereby  assimilate 
the  form  of  expression  to  that  used  in  chap.  i.  24,  iii.  1,  x.  33,  xix,  5.     This 
emendation  is  approved  by  Lowth,  Ewald,  and  Henderson,  who  says  that 
"in  consequence  of  Jewish  superstition,  the  divine  name  has  been  tam- 
pered with  by  some  copyist."     It  is  much  more  probable,  however,  that  an 
unusual  form  was  exchanged  for  a  common  one  in  a  few  copies,  than  that 
Jewish  superstition  tampered  with  the  divine  name  in  a  single  place,  and 
left  it  untouched  in  at  least  four  others. — Gesenius  and  De  Wette  use  the 
present  form  sends ;  but  in  a  case  of  threatening,  the  future  proper  is  far 
more  appropriate.     This  particular  form  of  the  Hebrew  verb  is  often  used 
with  the  same  preposition  to  denote  the  infliction  of  penal  sufferings.     The 
best  translation,  therefore,  is  not  send  amonrf  but  send  upon,  implying  the 
action  of  a  higher  power  (compare  Ezek.  vii.  3  and  v.  7).     Hitzig  regards 
VJOJi'O  as  an  abstract  meaning  fatnesses  or  fatness,  and  Cocceius,  Vitringa, 
and  J.  H.  Michaelis  translates  it  by  a  plural  neuter  (pinguia)  meaning  fat 
things  or  parts  ;  Ewald  more  explicitly,  his  fat  limbs;  which  supposes  an 
allusion  to  a  body.     Most  interpreters,  however,  understand  it  as  an  epithet 
of  persons  (fat  ones),  as  in  Ps.  Ixxviii.  31,  viz.,  the  Assyrian  warriors  or 
their  chiefs,  so  called  as  being  stout  and  lusty.     The  sending  of  leanness 
upon  them  seems  to  be  a  figure  for  the  reduction  of  then*  strength,  with  or 
without  allusion  to  the  health  of  individuals.     Some  suppose  an  exclusive 


232  ISAIAH  X.  [Ver.  17. 

reference  to  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army,  others  a  more  general  one 
to  the  decline  of  the  Assyrian  power.  Both  are  probably  included,  the  first 
as  one  of  the  most  striking  indications  of  the  last.  By  (jlonj  we  are  not  to 
understand  the  splendid  dress  of  the  Assyrian  soldiers  (Jarchi),  nor  the  army 
(Vitringa),  nor  the  great  men  of  the  army  or  the  empire  (Lowth),  nor  the 
glorying  or  boasting  of  the  king  (Kimchi),  but  magnificence  and  greatness 
in  the  general,  civil  and  militaiy,  moral  and  material.  The  preposition 
nnn  may  either  mean  instead  of,  in  exchange  for  (Peshito),  or  in  tlie  place 
of,  i.  e.  in  the  place  occupied  by  Junius),  or  literally  tinder,  which  is  pro- 
bably the  true  sense,  as  it  agi-ecs  best  with  the  figure  of  a  fire,  which  is  then 
described  as  kindled  at  the  bottom  of  the  splendid  fabric,  with  a  view  to  its 
more  complete  destruction. — Luther,  Calvin,  the  English  Version,  and  some 
others,  make  "Ip*  a  transitive  verb  meaning  to  kindle  and  agreeing  with 
Jehovah,  or  the  king  of  Assyria  ;  but  in  all  the  other  places  where  it  occurs 
it  is  intransitive,  and  is  so  rendered  by  the  Vulgate  (ardebit)  and  the  recent 
writers,  agreeing  with  1p\  which  is  not  here  an  infinitive,  though  so  ex- 
plained by  Cocceius  (ardebit  ardendo),  but  a  noun,  Cocceius  is  singular  in 
supposing  that  this  last  clause  is  descriptive  of  the  rage  and  spite  excited  in 
Sennacherib  by  his  first  repulse  from  Judah.  Other  interpreters  regard  it 
as  descriptive  of  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army,  as  caused  by  a  burn- 
ing disease  or  pestilential  fever  (Junius,  J.  H.  Michaelis,  J.  D.  Michaelis) 
— others  more  naturally  as  a  lively  figure  for  the  suddenness,  completeness, 
and  rapidity  of  the  destruction,  without  direct  allusion  to  the  means  or  cause 
(Calnn,  Clericus,  Vitringa,  Rosenmiiller,  Barnes,  Henderson).  Gesenius, 
who  excludes  any  special  reference  to  Sennacherib's  army,  understands  by 
the  fire  here  described  the  flames  of  war  in  general. 

17.  And  the  lir/ht  of  Israel  shall  he  for  a  /ire  (i.  e.  shall  become  one,  or 
shall  act  as  one),  and  his  Holy  One  for  a  flame,  and  it  shall  hum  and  devour 
his  (the  Assyrian's)  thorns  and  briers  in  one  daij  [i.e.  in  a  ver}'  short  time). 
— "l1^<  always  denotes  liijht,  literal  or  figurative.  In  the  places  cited  by 
Barnes  (chap.  xliv.  16,  xlvii.  14  ;  Ezek.  v.  2),  the  idea  oi  jire  is  denoted 
by  a  cognate  but  distinct  form  (1-1^).  According  to  Jarchi,  the  Light  of 
Israel  is  the  Law  of  God,  while  another  rabbiniccal  tradition  applies  it  to 
Hezekiah.  It  is  no  doubt  intended  as  an  epithet  of  God  himself,  so  called 
because  he  enlightened  Israel  by  his  Word  and  Spirit,  and  cheered  them 
by  the  light  of  his  countenance.  There  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  pillar  of 
cloud,  and  some  think  to  the  angel  of  God's  presence  who  was  in  it.  The 
Vulgate  even  renders  tJ'N?  in  itjne,  which  is  wholly  unauthorised.  There 
seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  supposing  with  Vitringa  that  the  Pro- 
phet alludes  to  the  worship  of  Light  or  the  God  of  Light  among  the  hea- 
then under  the  names  "jQeos,  IJorus,  probably  derived  from  "li^<.  There 
seems  to  be  an  antithesis  between  light  and  fire.  He  who  was  a  light  to 
Israel  was  a  fire  to  Assyria.  Some  of  the  early  Jews  read  "it^'np  as  a  plural, 
meaning  /(/,s  saints,  i.  e.  the  pious  Jews  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah.  The 
thorns  and  the  briers  are  explained  by  Jarchi  as  a  figure  for  the  chiefs  of 
the  Assyrians — by  Lowth,  Ewald,  Umbreit  and  others,  for  the  connnon 
soldiers  as  distinguished  from  the  officers  and  princes,  the  forest- trees  of  the 
ensuing  context — but  by  most  interpreters,  with  more  probability,  as  a  figure 
for  the  whole  body,  either  in  allusion  to  their  pointed  weapons  (Gesenius, 
Henderson),  or  to  their  malice  and  vexation  of  the  Jews  (Kimchi,  Grotius, 
Hitzig),  or  to  their  combustible  nature  and  fitness  for  the  fire  (Clericus, 
P>arnes).  Vitringa  supposes  a  threefold  allusion  to  their  number  and  con- 
fusion as  a  great  mixed  multitude,  their  mischievous  hostility,  and  their 


Ver.  18.J  ISATAH  X.  233 

impending  doom.  Here,  as  in  the  foregoing  verse,  fire  is  mentioned  as  a 
rapid  and  powerful  consuming  agent,  without  express  allusion  to  the  manner 
or  the  means  of  the  destruction  threatened. 

18.  And  the  glory  (/.  e.  beauty)  of  hh  (the  Assyrian's)  forest  and  his 
fruitful  field,  from  soul  to  bodij  [i.  e.  totally),  u-ill  lie  (the  Lord)  consume,  and 
it  shall  be  like  the  wasting  aicai/  of  a  sick  man. — Clericus  reads  their  forest, 
but  the  reference  is  not  so  much  to  the  Assyrians  collectively  as  to  the  king 
who  was  their  chief  and  representative.  B}'  his  forest  some  \\Titers  under- 
stand his  host  collectively,  his  individual  soldiers  or  their  arms  being  the 
trees  which  composed  it ;  others  the  chief  men  as  distinguished  from  the 
multitude,  the  thorns  and  briers  of  the  verse  preceding. — The  Vulgate, 
Clericu:^,  Rosenmiiller  and  Augusti,  take  li'OIS  as  a  proper  name  [his  Car- 
mel),  the  mountain  or  mountains  of  that  name  being  noted  for  fertility. 
The  name,  however,  is  itself  significant,  being  derived  by  some  of  the  older 

writers  from  *13,  a  pasture,  and  VO^,full  (Yitringa),  or  7^?^,  to  cut  (Bochart) 
— by  others  from  D")3,a  vineyard,  and  ^^,  the  name  of  God,  a  vineyard  of 
God,  i.  e.  a  choice  or  fruitful  vineyard  (Lowth,  Lee) — but  by  most  of  the 
recent  lexicographers  from  Q"13  a  vineyard,  with  the  addition  of  ?,  making  it 
diminutive  (Gesenius,  Winer,  Fiirst).  In  its  primary  import  it  may  be 
applied  to  any  highly  cultivated  or  productive  spot,  a  garden,  vineyard, 
orchard,  or  the  like,  and  its  appropriation  as  a  proper  name  is  altogether 
secondary.  Henderson  renders  it  j^lantation.  Here  it  may  either  be  equi- 
valent and  parallel  to  forest,  in  which  case  it  would  signify  a  park  stocked 
\\ath  choice  and  noble  trees  (Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  De  Wette) — or 
it  may  be  in  antithesis  to  forest,  and  denote  a  cleared  and  cultivated  field 
(Ewald,  Umbreit,  &c.).  Kimchi  would  understand  by  forest  the  chief 
men,  and  hy  fruitful  field  their  wealth  and  especially'  their  mihtary  stores. 
Vitringa  thinks  it  possible  that  the  forest  is  Nineveh  the  royal  city,  the 
fruitful  field  the  country  at  large,  and  the  glory  of  both,  the  wealth  and 
magnificence  of  the  whole  empire,  as  concentrated  and  displayed  in  Sennach- 
erib's army.  The  obvious  and  true  interpretation  is,  that  the  Prophet 
meant  to  represent  the  greatness  of  Assji'ia  under  figures  borrowed  from  the 
vegetable  world,  and  for  that  purpose  uses  terms  descriptive  of  the  most  im- 
pressive aspects  under  which  a  fruitful  land  presents  itself,  forests  and  har- 
vest-fields, the  two  together  making  a  complete  picture,  without  the  necessity 
of  giving  to  each  part  a  distinctive  import.  The  forest  and  th.e  fruitful  field, 
here  applied  to  Assyria,  are  applied  by  Sennacherib  himself  to  Israel  (chap, 
xxxvii.  24).  Cocceius  and  Vitringa  construe  Tl^S  as  an  absolute  nomina- 
tive— and  as  to  the  glory — but  it  is  rather  governed  by  the  verb  in  the 
next  clause. — As  the  terms  soul  and  flesh  are  strictly  inapplicable  to  the 
trees  and  fields,  we  must  either  suppose  that  the  Prophet  here  discards  his 
metaphor,  and  goes  on  to  speak  of  the  Assyrians  as  men,  or  that  the  phrase 
is  a  proverbial  one,  meaning  body  and  soul,  i.  e.  altogether,  and  is  here  ap- 
plied without  regard  to  the  primary  import  of  the  terms,  or  their  agreement 
with  the  foregoing  figiu-es.  Either  of  these  explanations  is  better  than  to 
understand  the  clause  with  Vatablus,  as  meaning  that  the  fii-e  would  not 
only  take  away  the  lives  (^2J)  of  the  Assj-rians,  but  consume  their  bodies 
(y^l) — or  with  the  Dutch  Aainotators,  that  the  destruction  would  extend 
both  to  men  (tJ'DJ)  and  to  beasts  C^*^^) — or  wdth  Musculus,  that  the  progi'ess 
of  the  fatal  stroke  would  be  not  ab  extra  but  ab  intra,  which  J.  D.  Michaelis 
regards  as  an  exact  description  of  the  plague. — In  the  English  Version,  the 

construction  is  continued  from  the  preceding  verse,  as  if  iVy  and  the  verbs 


284  ISAIAH  X.  [Vee.  18. 

of  that  verse  had  a  common  subject.  But  as  those  verbs  were  feminine  to 
agree  with  nan?,  so  this  is  mascuhne  to  agi'ce  with  Jehovah,  or  the  Light 
of  Israel,  or  the  Augcl  of  his  Presence.  Henderson  restores  the  Hebrew 
collocation,  but  makes  it  the  subject  of  the  verb  consume.  Lowth  and 
Barnes  more  correctly  supply  he.  This  verb  is  rendered  by  a  passive  or  a 
neuter  in  the  Vulgate,  Luther,  and  Augusti,  as  if  it  were  tbe  Kal  and  not 
the  Piel.     The  same  construction  is  ascribed  to  the  Peshito  in  the  Latin 

version  of  the  London  Polyglot ;  but  as  the  Syiiac  verb  (.^n  .  Qhas  both 

an  active  and  a  neuter  sense,  and  as  the  rest  of  the  clause  is  in  exact 
accordance  with  the  Hebrew  text,  this  translation  does  injustice  to  the 
faithfulness   and  skill  of  that   celebrated   version. — Some  of  the  recent 
versions  render  ^^^1  no  that  it  is  (Ewald,  Umbreit),  or  so  that  he  is  (Hc-nde- 
werk).     Cocceius  makes  DDJ  the  nominative  before  H^H,  Junius  the  nomi- 
native after  it.     The  most  natural  construction  is  to  read  with  Hendewerk, 
he  shall  he  («'.  e.  the  king  of  Assyria),  or  with  the  English  Bible,  ihei/  shall 
he,  i.e.  the  Assyrians  collectively,  or  with  Hitzig  indefinitely,  it  shall  he,  i.e. 
the  end,  issue,  consequence,  shall  be,  or  the  final  state  of  things  shall  be. — 
The  remaining  words  of  the  verse  have  been  very  variously  explained.  Junius 
takes  3  as  a  particle  of  time,  which  sense  it  often  has  before  the  infinitive  : 
as  {i.  e.  when)  he  decays.     All  other  writers  seem  to  give  it  its  usual  com- 
parative meaning.     Aben  Ezra  makes  Diop  a  noun  analogous  in  form  to 
*11p*,  in  ver.  16.     All  other  writers  seem  to  make  it  the  infinitive  of  DpD  to 
vielt,  dissolve,   or  waste  away,  literally  or  figuratively,  with  fear,  grief,  or 
disease. — Jarchi  explains  DDj  as  a  cognate  form  to  Dp  and  as  being  the 
name  of  a  worm  or  insect  which  corrodes  wood — he  shall  he  like  the  uasting 
of  a  n-ood-ivorm — i.e.   pulverised.       The  ancient  versions  make   Dpi  the 
participle  of  Dp3  (/.  q.  D-1J)  to  flee,  and  Junius  reads  the  whole  clause  thus 
■ — and   it  shall  he  (/.  e.  this  shall  come    to    pass)  ichen   the  fiu/itive  shall 
melt  aicay  (or  be  destroyed) — i.e.  when  Sennacherib,  fleeing  from  Judah, 
shall  be  murdered  at  home.     Cocceius  explains  DD3  to  mean  that  which  is 
lofty  or  eminent,  and  takes  it  as  the  subject  of  n^H — that  uhich  is  loftij  shall 
be  like  corraption  or  decay.     Kimchi  derives  the  meaning  of  DDJ  from  D3, 
an  ensign  or  standard — like  the  faint iny  of  an  cnsiyn  or  as  ichcn  a  standard- 
bearer  falls  (the  soldiers  fly).     This  is  followed  by  Calvin,  by  the  French, 
Dutch,  and  English  Versions,  by  Vatablus,  Piscator,  Gataker,  and  Clericus 
(who  explains  DDp  of  the  standard-bearer's  heart  faihng  him).     To  this 
it  has  been  objected,  that  D3  never  means  a  military  standard,  but  a  signal 
or  a  signal-pole,  and  that  no  such  efi'ect  as  that  supposed  would  necessarily 
follow  from  the  flight  or  the  fall  of  an  ensign.     The  first  of  these  objections 
applies  also  to  the  very  difl"ercnt  interpretation  of  Trcmellius— fl??d  he  shall 
he  a  standard-hearer  (to  the  Assyrians)  at  the  time  of  (their)  decline.     The 
most  recent  writers  are  agreed  in  adopting  the  derivation  of  Dpi  proposed 

by  Hezel  and  Schelling,  who  compare  it  with  the  Syiiac  ,^j  to  be  sick 
(whence  the  adjective  |f^  .  mt).  and  explain  the  clause  to  mean  //  (or  he) 
is  (or  shall  be)  like  tlie  fainting  (or  uasting  auay)  of  a  sick  man.  None 
of  the  ancient  version  give  a  literal  translation  of  this  clause.  The 
Septuagint  renders  both  DCp  ar.d  Cpj  by  o  plyuiv,  and  adds  dw6  fXcytg 
xa/o/x£V'/jc,  upon  which  Lowtli  does  not  hesitate  to  found  a  change  of  text. 
The  Chaldce  paraphrase  is,  and  he  shall  he  hrokai  and  a  fiiyitire;  the  Syriac, 
he  shall  he  as  if  he  had  not  been  ;  the  Latin,  crit  lerrorc  profiigus.     To  these 


Ver.  19,  20.]  ISAIAH  X.  235 

may  be  added  Luther's — he  shall  waste  away  and  dimppear ;  and  Augusti's 
— there  shall  remain  a  wasted  body.  This  disposition  to  paraphrase  the 
clause  instead  of  translating  it,  together  with  the  various  ways  in  which  it 
is  explained,  may  serve  to  shew  how  difficult  and  doubtful  it  has  seemed  to 
all  interpreters,  ancient  and  modern.  The  paronomasia  in  the  original  is 
not  very  happily  copied  by  Gesenius — wie  einer  hlnschmachtet  in  Ohnmacht . 
19.  And  the  re-it  (or  remnant)  of  the  trees  of  his  forest  shall  be  few,  and  a 
child  shall  write  them,  i.  e.  make  a  list  or  catalogue,  and  by  implication 
7uimbcr  them. — The  singular  form  of  Y^-  is  retained  in  translation  by  tho 
Vulgate  and  Calvin  (rcliquiffi  ligni),  and  the  sense  of  wood,  though  in  the 
plural,  by  Junius  (reliqua  ligna).  His  forest  is  omitted  by  Hendewerk, 
changed  to  this  forest  by  J.  J).  Michaelis,  to  the  forest  by  Gesenius,  and  to 
their  forest  by  Clericus.  The  Septuagint  substitutes  cctt'  avruv,  and  the 
Targum  an  explanatory  paraphrase,  the  rest  of  his  men  of  war. — In  the 
Hebrew  idiom,  number,  when  absolutely  used,  has  an  opposite  meaning  to 
its  usual  sense  in  English  and  in  Latin.  By  a  mimher,  we  generally  mean 
a  considerable  number ;  Horace  says,  nos  nmnerus  sumus,  meaning,  ice  are 
manij  (numerous)  ;  but  in  Hebrew,  men  of  number  is  a  few  men  (Gen. 
xxxiv.  30 ;  Deut.  iv.  27,  xxxiii.  6).  The  idea  seems  to  be  that  small 
amounts  m.aj  easily  be  reckoned,  with  some  allusion,  Rosenmiiller  thinks, 
to  the  ancient  usage  of  weighing  large,  and  counting  only  small  sums. 
Thus  Cicero  speaks  of  treasures  so  vast  ut  jam  appendantar  non  nnme- 
rentiir  j)eciinici;,  and  Ovid  says,  of  another  kind  of  property,  pauperis  est 
nuinerare  pecus.  The  same  idiom  exists  in  Arabic,  the  numbered  days  often 
mentioned  in  the  Koran  being  explained  by  the  commentators  to  mean /<?«'. 
— The  plural  VH''  may  either  agi-ee  with  l^^t^  as  a  collective,  or  with  a  plural 
understood — as  for  the  rest,  they  shall  be  few.  So  J.  H.  Michaelis  and 
Rosenmiiller.  In  order  to  remove  the  ambiguity,  the  words  "ISDO  ITT"  are 
paraphrastically  rendered  by  the  Vulgate  (pra3  paucitate  numerabuntur), 
Luther,  Vitringa,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Ewald,  Umbreit.  The  English  version 
and  some  others  simply  substitute  for  "ISDO  its  peculiar  idiomatic  sense  of 
feir. — According  to  Rosenmiiller,  there  is  an  allusion  in  the  last  clause  to  a 
child  just  beginning  to  count,  and  as  yet  only  able  to  reckon  on  its  fingers, 
which  he  thinks  will  account  for  the  rabbinical  tradition  that  a  definite 
number  (ten)  is  here  predicted,  and  that  just  this  number  of  Sennacherib's 
army  did  in  fact  escape.  Gill  quotes  another  Jewish  legend  which  reduces 
the  number  to  five  and  specifies  the  persons.  The  first  of  these  traditions 
is  explained  by  Jarchi  as  involving  an  allusion  to  the  letter  yodh  (the  alpha- 
betic representative  of  10),  as  the  smallest  and  simplest  of  the  Hebrew 
characters,  so  that  a  child  who  was  barely  able  to  form  this  one  would  be 
competent  to  write  down  the  number  of  those  who  should  escape  the 
slaughter.  According  to  Gataker  and  Knobel,  the  idea  is,  that  there  would 
be  no  need  of  an  inspector  or  a  muster-master,  any  child  would  be  able  to 
discharge  the  office. 

20.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass)  in  that  day  (that  is,  after  these 
events  have  taken  place),  that  the  remnant  of  Israel,  and  the  escaped  of  the 
house  of  Jacob,  shtdl  no  lonyer  add  [i.e.  continue)  to  lean  upon  their  smiter 
(him  that  smote  them),  hut  shall  lean  upon  Jehovah,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel, 
in  truth.  There  is  here  an  allusion  to  the  circumstances  which  gavo 
rise  to  this  whole  prophecy.  Ahaz,  renouncing  his  dependence  upon 
God,  had  sought  the  aid  of  Ass5a-ia,  which  secured  his  deliverance  from  pre- 
sent danger,  but  subjected  the  kingdom  to  worse  evils  from  the  very  power 
to  which  they  had  resorted.     But  even  these  oppressions  were  to  have  an 


286  ISAIAH  X.  [Ver.  21. 

end  in  the  destruction  of  the  hostile  power ;  and  when  this  should  take 
place,  Judah,  now  instnicted  by  experience,  would  no  longer  trust  in  tyrants, 
but  sincerely  in  Jehovah.  Cocceius,  Brentius,  and  Schmidius,  refer  this 
promise  to  the  times  of  Christ  exclusively,  because  this  is  the  usual  applica- 
tion of  the  phrase  that  (hii/;  because  reliance  upon  God  in  truth  is  a  pecu- 
liar promise  of  the  new  dispensation  ;  because  Israel  did  continue  to  rely  on 
foreif,'u  aid,  even  after  the  decline  of  the  AssjTian  power  ;  and  because  vers. 
22,  28,  are  referred  by  Paul  (Rom.  ix.  27,  28)  to  the  times  of  the  New 
Testament.  But  since  this  prophecy  immediately  follows  and  precedes  pre- 
dictions of  the  downfall  of  Assyria,  and  since  that  power  seems  distinctly 
mentioned  in  the  phrase  -I'lSD,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  conclude,  that  in  that 
(hnj  means  after  that  event,  and  tliat  the  reference  is  not  to  a  sudden  and 
immediate  eflect,  but  to  a  gradual  result  of  the  divine  dispensations,  so  that 
what  is  here  predicted,  though  it  began  to  be  fulfilled  from  the  time  of  that 
catastrophe,  did  not  receive  its  final  consummation  before  Christ's  appear- 
ance. On  this  supposition,  we  are  better  able  to  explain  the  remnant  of 
Israel,  as  meaning  not  merely  those  left  in  Judah  after  the  canying  away 
of  the  ten  tribes — nor  the  Jews  themselves  who  should  outlive  the  Assyrian 
oppressions,  and  to  whom  the  same  phrase  is  applied,  2  Kings  xix.  4,  31  ; 
xxi.  14 — nor  merely  the  Jews  who  should  return  from  the  Babylonish  exile, 
and  to  whom  it  is  applied,  Hag.  i.  2,  Zech.  viii.  G — nor  merely  the  spiritual 
Israel,  the  remnant  arcordinr/  to  the  election  of  ffrace,  Rom.  xi.  5 — but 
all  these  at  once,  or  rather  in  succession,  should  be  taught  the  lesson  of 
exclusive  reliance  upon  God,  by  his  judgments  on  his  enemies. — The  verbal 
form  ^*DV,  shall  add  (expressing  continued  or  repeated  action),  is  suppressed 
not  only  in  the  English  Version,  but  in  many  others,  including  the  most 
recent.  It  is  retained  in  the  ancient  versions  and  by  Calvin  and  Cocceius, 
and  accommodated  to  the  idiom  of  other  languages  by  Junius  (pergat) 
Augusti  (fortfahren),  Hendewerk  (aufhoren), — The  verb  stay,  used  in  the 
English  Version  to  translate  W^}  is  equivocal,  like  peep  in  ver.  14,  because 
now  employed  chiefly  in  another  sense.  The  idea  expressed  by  the  Hebrew 
word  is  simply  that  of  leaning  for  support. — Calvin  renders  the  1  at  the 
beginning  of  the  last  clause /'or,  and  Hitzig  tio  !  Its  true  force  may  be  best 
conveyed  in  English  by  the  simple  adversative  bnt.  For  the  usage  of  the 
phrase  /'^<"lt^'^  '^'I'lp,  vide  supra,  chap.  i.  9.  By  the  phrase  in  truth,  Cocceius 
understands  that  the  elect  should  trust  in  the  reality,  as  distinguished  from 
the  types  and  shadows  of  the  old  economy.  The  common  and  obvious 
interpretation  is,  that  they  should  trust  God  in  sincerity,  as  opposed  to  a 
mere  h^^ocritical  profession,  and  with  constancy,  as  opposed  to  capricious 
vacillation. 

21.  A  remnant  shall  return,  a  remnant  of  Jacob,  to  (rod  Abniyhty. 
There  is  an  obvious  allusion  in  these  words  to  the  name  of  the  Prophet's 
son  Shear-Jashuh,  mentioned  in  chap.  vii.  3.  As  the  people  were  probably 
familiar  with  this  name,  its  introduction  here  would  be  the  more  significant. 
The  Targum  expounds  the  remnant  of  Jacob  to  mean  "  those  who  have  not 
sinned,  or  have  turned  from  sin."  It  really  means  those  who  should  survive 
God's  judgments  threatened  in  this  prophecy,  not  merely  the  Assyrian  inva- 
sion or  the  Babylonish  exile,  but  the  whole  series  of  remarkable  events,  by 
which  the  histors'  of  the  chosen  people  would  be  marked,  including  the 
dcstniction  and  dispersion  of  the  nation  by  the  Romans.  There  is  no  need, 
as  Henderson  supposes,  of  supplying  the  words  and  oidy  in  the  text  or  in 
translation.  That  idea,  as  Hitzig  well  observes,  is  suggested  by  the  repeti- 
tion.    The  return  here  spoken  of  is  one  that  was  to  take  place  at  various 


Yer.  22.]  ISAIAH  X.  237 

times  aucl  in  various  circumstances.  Under  the  old  dispensation,  the  j^ro- 
phecy  was  verified  in  the  conversion  of  idolatrous  Jews  to  the  worship  of 
Jehovah,  or  of  wicked  Jews  to  a  godly  life,  by  means  of  their  afilictions — 
under  the  new,  in  the  admission  of  believing  Jews  to  the  Christian  Church, 
and  prospectively  in  the  general  conversion  of  Israel  to  God,  which  is  yet  to 
be  expected.  Grotius  imagines  that  the  return  here  mentioned  is  that  of  the 
Jews,  whom  Sennacherib's  invasion  had  assembled  in  Jerusalem,  to  their 
own  homes  ;  but  this  is  directly  contradicted  by  the  words  that  follow,  to 
the  mighty  God,  which  in  that  case  would  mean  nothing.  These  words  are 
understood  by  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  and  De  Wette,  here  as  in  chap.  ix.  5,  to  mean 
mighti/  hero.  Hendewerk,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  with  all  the  early  writers, 
give  the  words  their  proper  sense.  They  shall  return  to  Him  who  has  thus 
shewn  himself  to  be  the  mighty  God.  Jarchi  supposes  a  special  allusion  to 
the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army;  Clericus,  to  the  impotence  of  idols, 
from  whose  worship  they  would  turn  to  that  of  the  true  God,  the  God  truly 
and  exclusively  omnipotent.  The  present  form  given  to  the  verb  tu7-n  by 
the  recent  German  writers,  is  less  suited  to  so  manifest  a  promise  than  the 
proper  future. — The  definite  article  [the  remnant),  which  is  used  in  the 
English  Version  and  by  Barnes,  is  less  exact  than  the  indefinite  one  em- 
ployed by  Lowth  and  Henderson, 

22.  The  Prophet  now  explains  his  use  of  the  word  remnant,  and  shews 
that  the  threatening  which  it  involves  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  ancient 
promises.  For  though  thy  people,  0  Israel  (or  Jacob),  shall  he  like  the 
sand  of  the  sea  (in  multitude),  only  a  remnant  of  them  shall  return.  A 
consumption  is  decreed,  overflowing  (with)  righteousness.  The  first  clause 
is  explained  by  Augusti,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  De  Wette,  Ewald,  Umbreit, 
as  expressive  only  of  a  possible  contingency  [ivere  thy  people,  or  even  if 
thy  peopile  ice  re) — by  Luther,  Gesenius,  and  Barnes,  as  refen'ing  to  their 
actual  condition  (though  thy  people  he  now  numerous) — but  more  con*ectly 
by  Calvin,  Cocceius,  and  Lowth,  as  relating  to  a  certain  event,  but  one 
still  future  {though  thy  people  shall  he  or  is  to  he).  There  seems,  as  Cal- 
vin says,  to  be  allusion  to  the  promises  given  to  the  Patriarchs  [e.  g.  Gen. 
xiii.  IG,  xxii.  17),  and  repeated  by  the  Prophets  {e.g.  Hos.  ii.  1),  the  ful- 
filment of  which  might  have  seemed  to  be  precluded  by  the  threatening  in 
ver.  21 — to  prevent  which  false  conclusion,  Isaiah  here  repeats  the  threat- 
ening with  the  promise — "  though  thy  people  shall  indeed  be  numerous,  yet,'' 
&c.  This  particle,  supplied  in  the  English  Version,  though  unaecessary, 
does  not  "  evidently  obscure  the  sense  "  (Barnes),  but  makes  it  clearer  by 
rendering  more  prominent  the  apparent  opposition  between  the  thi'eatening 
and  the  promise. — Israel  is  taken  in  the  Septuagint  and  English  Version, 
and  by  Henderson,  as  a  nominative  in  apposition  with  M]/ ;^fo;)/6!,  God  him- 
self being  the  object  of  address  ;  but  the  better  and  more  usual  construction 
regards  Israel  as  a  vocative.  The  name  may  be  understood  as  that  of  the 
nation  ;  but  there  is  more  force  in  the  language  of  (we  supjDose,  with  Calvin), 
an  apostrophe  to  Israel  or  Jacob  as  the  common  ancestor,  thus  keeping  up 
a  distinct  allusion  to  the  ancient  promises.  Thy  p)eople  will  then  mean  thy 
posterity — not  the  ten  tribes  exclusively,  nor  Judah  exclusively,  but  the 
whole  race  without  distinction. — Like  the  sand  of  the  sea  does  not  mean 
scattered  and  despised,  as  Augusti  strangely  imagines,  but  innumerable 
as  in  every  other  case  where  the  comparison  occurs  {e.  g.  Gen.  xxii.  17 ; 
Ps.  cxxxix.  18 ;  Hos.  ii.  1  ;  cf.  Gen.  xiii.  16).  Henderson  explains  12  to 
him,  i.  e.  to  God,  as  in  Hos.  xii.  6  ;  but  it  rather  means  in  it,  i.  e.  in  thy 
people,  as  we  express  proportion  by  saying  "  one  in  ten."     It  is  retained 


238  ISAIAH  X.  [Ver.  23. 

by  Cocceius  (in  co),  Umbreit  (dariii),  and  Ewald  (danmter)  ;  but  in  order   ' 
to  avoid  the  ambiguity  arising  from   a  diflerence  of  idiom,  the  in   may  be 
exchanged  for  of  or  from,  as   in   the  ancient  versions  and  by  most  modem 
writers.     Gcsenius,   Hitzig,   Hendewerk,  and  De  Wette,  use  the  present 
form  rctiinis,  which  is  not  so  natural  in  this  connection  as  the  future  given 
by  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  all  the  older  writers.     The  return  predicted  is  not 
merely  that  from  the  Babylonish  exile,  but  a  return  to  God  by  true  repent- 
ance and  conversion,  as  the  only  means  of  salvation — reliquiae  convertentiir 
(Vulgate).    That  a  remnant  only  should  escape,  implies  of  course  a  general 
destruction,  which  is  positively  foretold  in  the  last  clause.     Grotius  and 
Clericus  explain  P  v3  to  mean  a  reckoning,  or  a  swn  as  determined  by  a 
reckoning,  here  applied  to  the  remnant  of  Israel  as  a  small  number,  easily 
computed.     This,  according  to  Clericus,  is  also  the  meaning  of  the  Vulgate 
version,  consummatio.     Forerius   and  Sanctius   understand  by  it  the  rem- 
nant itself,  as  having  been  almost  consumed ;  De  Dieu,  a  decree  or  deter- 
mination; J.  D.  Michaelis,  the  accomplishment  or  execution  of  a  purpose; 
but  the  simple   and  true  meaning  is   consumption  or  destruction,  as  in 
Deut.  xxviii.  G5.     Forerius  strangely  understands  }'1"'n  to  mean  a  harrow 
or  a  threshiny-muchine,  figm-atively  applied  to  the  suflerings  of  the  people. 
Some  explain  it  as  an  adjective,  meaning  severe  (Umbreit)  or  certain  (Vata- 
t,lus) — the  Vulgate  as  a  participle,  meaning  shortened.     Aben  Ezra  gives 
the  true  explanation  of  the  word,  as  a  participle  meaning  decreed,   deter- 
mined (1  Kings  XX.  40).     Henderson  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  verb  (to  cut,    carve,   or  engrave),  implying   permanence 
and  immutability.      Junius  and  Clericus  make  this  phrase  dependent  on 
t"|l?b'   as   a  transitive  verbal  form ;  but  it   is  rather  to   be  construed  with 
the  substantive  verb  understood — a  consumplion  is  decreed — or  as  a  subject 
with  ^pi^'  as  a  predicate — the  consumption  decreed    {is)  overfloirinr/,    i.  e. 
overflows — a  metaphor  frequently  applied  to  invading  ai-mies  (chap.  viii.  8, 
xxviii.  15,  18;  Dan.  xi.  20,  22) — so  that  there  is  no  need  of  attaching  to 
^yiJ^  the  Chaldee  sense  of  hastening,  as  proposed  by  Clericus.     He  also 
makes  it  agree  with  the  name  of  God,  as  Grotius  does  with  remnant ; 
but  it  really  agrees  with  consumption.     Righteousness,  according  to  De 
Dieu,  here  means  goodness  in  general  and  mercy  in  particular.     Calvin 
and  Grotius  too  explain  it  to  mean  piety  or  virtue ;  but  Vitringa  and  otliers 
take  it  more  correctly  in  its  strict  sense  of  retributive  and  punitive  justice. 
A  preposition  is  supplied  before  it  by  the  Septuagint  (si/  br/.aioalvfi)  and 
Umbreit  (mit  Gerechtigkeit),  making  it  merely  an  attendant  circumstance. 
Gesenius,   Hitzig,   Maurer,   Hendewerk,   De  Wette,  make  it  the  object  of 
^'^  considered  as  an  active  verb — floating  righteousness  in,  /.  e.  bringing 
it  in  like  a  flood.     Ewald  and  others  make  the  noun  an  adverbial  accusa- 
tive— flowing  or  overflowing  (with)   righteottsncss.     The   sense   is  not  that 
the  remnant  of  Israel  should  be  the  means  of  flooding  the  world  w-ith 
righteousness  (Calvin),  nor  that  they  should  be  full  of  it  themselves  (Gro- 
tius), but  that  the  destruction  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people  w^ould  be  an 
event  involving  an  abundant  exhibition  of  God's  justice.     This  clause  is 
therefore  not,  as  De  Dieu  alleges,  a  direct  promise  of  deliverance  to  the 
elect,  but  a  threatening  of  destruction  to  the  reprobate. 

23.  This  verse  contains  a  further  explanation  of  the  )'-"lin  |V?3.  For  a 
consumplion  even  (the  one)  determined,  (is)  the  Lord,  Jehovah  of  hosts, 
making  (or  alout  to  make)  in  the  midst  of  all  the  earth. — August!  makes 
n?D  a  verb  (abgemcssen  ist),  Vitringa  a  participle  (consummatum.  Cleri- 
cus takes  it  as  a  noun,  but  in  the  sense  of  swn  or  reckoning,  Lowth  in  that 


Ver.  24.]  ISAIAH  X.  239 

oi  fidl  decree.  Castellio  has  slaughter,  which  is  too  specific;  Gesenius 
wasting,  which  is  not  strong  enough.  Most  writers  follow  the  ancient  ver- 
sion in  translating  it  consumption  or  destruction.  Castalio  and  Umbreit 
make  ni*"inj  an  adjective,  meaning  cruel  or  severe.  The  Targum  seems  to 
treat  it  as  an  adjective  without  a  substantive,  used  as  a  noun,  synonymous 
with  iTPS  .  Cocceius,  Junius,  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  others,  give  it  the 
sense  of  something  decreed,  a  decree,  a  judgment.  It  may,  however,  be 
more  strictly  understood  as  a  passive  participle  agreeing  with  n"?3 — a  con- 
sumption, even  a  decreed  (consumption). — ?3  is  omitted  by  the  Targum, 
Lowth  and  Barnes,  and  rendered  all  this  by  Junius  and  Piscator,  so  as  to 
give  X'}'^  the  restricted  sense  of  land,  which  is  the  common  explanation, 
although  Ewald  has  earth,  like  Septuagint  {or/.ou,'jt,fr/]).  This  verse  and  the 
one  before  it  are  quoted  by  Paul  (Kom.  ix.  27,  28),  to  shew  that  the  Jews, 
as  such,  were  not  the  heirs  of  the  promise,  which  was  intended  for  the 
remnant,  according  to  the  election  of  grace.  The  words  are  quoted  from 
the  Septuagint  with  a  slight  variation.  The  sense  of  the  Greek  is  correctly 
given  in  the  English  Version. 

24.  The  logical  connection  of  this  verse  is  not  with  that  immediately 
preceding,  but  with  ver.  19.  Having  there  declared  the  fate  impending 
over  the  Assyrian,  the  Prophet,  as  it  were,  turned  aside  to  describe  the 
effect  of  their  destruction  on  the  remnant  of  Israel,  and  now,  havino-  done 
so,  he  resumes  the  thread  of  his  discourse,  as  if  there  had  been  no  interrup- 
tion. Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah  of  hosts  (since  this  is  soon  to 
be  the  fate  of  the  Assyrians),  Be  not  afraid,  O  my  people  inhahiting  Zion,  of 
Asshur  (or  the  Assyrian).  He  shall  smite  thee  (it  is  true)  with  the  rod,  and 
shall  lift  up  his  staff  upon  [or  over)  thee  in  the  way  of  Egypt.  There  is 
consequently  no  need  of  departuig  from  the  ordinary  meaning  of  1??  and 
rendering  it  hut,  as  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Henderson  and  Umbreit  do. — Instead 
oi  saith,  Ciericus  and  J.  H.  Michaelis  read  liath  said  in  the  past  tense, 
which  seems  to  make  the  verse  the  record  of  a  former  revelation. — Accord- 
ing to  Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi,  Zion  is  here  put  simply  for  Jerusalem,  and 
the  address  is  to  the  population  of  that  city,  whether  permanent  or  tem- 
porary, during  Sennacherib's  invasion.  But  as  Zion  was  the  seat  of  the 
true  rehgion,  and  the  people  of  God  are  often  said  to  inhabit  Zion,  not  in 
a  local  but  a  spiritual  sense,  most  intei'preters  understand  the  object  of 
address  to  be  Israel  in  general,  while  some  restrict  it  to  the  pious  and 
believing  Jews,  the  remnant  of  Israel,  who  were  now  to  be  consoled  and 
reassured  amidst  the  judgments  which  were  coming  on  the  nation. — >1tS^X  is 
properly  the  name  of  the  whole  people,  and  denotes  the  Assyrians  in  the 
strict  sense,  and  not,  as  Cocceius  suggests,  the  Syro- Grecian  kings  who 
succeeded  Alexander,  or  the  Babylonians  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  though 
the  terms  of  the  consolation  are  so  chosen  as  to  be  appropriate  to  other 
emergencies  than  that  by  which  they  were  immediately  occasioned.  Gese- 
nius, Hitzig,  De  Wette,  Hendewerk,  and  Umbreit  make  '"135^  a  description 
of  the  past  {lie  smote  thee),  which  is  wholly  arbitrary,  if  not  ungrammatical. 
Ewald  and  Knobel  translate  it  as  a  present,  and  supply  a  relative  {luho 
smites  thee).  Henderson  has  he  may  smite  thee,  which  appears  to  render 
it  too  vague  and  dubious.  By  far  the  simplest  and  most  natural  con- 
struction is  that  which  gives  the  future  form  its  strict  sense  (he  shall 
smite  thee),  and  explains  the  clause  as  a  concession  of  the  fact,  that  Israel 
was  indeed  to  suffer  at  the  hand  of  Assyria — q.  d.  true,  he  shall  smite  thee 
with  the  rod,  &c.     Aben  Ezra  supposes  this  to  mean,  that  Assyria  should 


240  ISAIAH  X.  [Ver.  25. 

smite  them  only  in  design,  /.  e.  ivy  to  smite  them — others,  that  he  should  do 
no  more  than  smite  them,  he  should  smite,  but  not  kill,  as  a  master  treats 
his  slave  or  a  rider  his  beast.  It  seems  more  natural,  however,  to  explain 
it  in  a  general  way,  as  simply  conceding  that  they  should  be  smitten,  the 
necessary  qualification  or  restriction  being  afterwards  expressed.  — Here,  as 
in  chap.  ix.  3,  Yitringa  understands  by  '"1^0,  a  yoke,  and  by  the  whole  phrase, 
he  shall  lift  v})  (and  impose)  his  yoke  vpan  iJtce.  This  does  not  materially 
change  the  sense,  but  makes  a  distinction  between  the  parallel  cxpre.ssions, 
which,  to  say  the  least,  is  needless  and  gratuitous.  The  best  interpretation 
is  the  common  one,  which  takes  rod  and  staff  as  equivalent  figures  for 
oppression. — The  last  words,  in  the  xvatj  oj  Efjupt,  are  ambiguous,  and  ad- 
mit of  two  distinct  interpretations.  Some  early  writers,  quoted  by  Calvin, 
make  the  phrase  to  mean,  o»  tJie  u-ay  to  (or  from)  Erpjpt,  in  allusion  to  the 
fact,  that  Sennacherib  attacked  Judca  in  the  course  of  an  expedition  against 
Eg;s'pt.  This  view  of  the  passage  is  adopted  by  Jerome,  Clericus,  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  and  Augusti,  and  has  much  to  recommend  it,  as  it  seems  to  adhere 
to  the  literal  import  of  the  teims,  and  introduces  a  striking  coincidence  of 
prophecy  with  history.  The  principal  objection  is  derived  from  the  analogy 
of  ver.  2G.  The  weight  of  exegetical  authority  preponderates  in  favour  of  a 
figurative  exposition,  making  in  the  way  synonymous  with  in  the  manner, 
after  the  example,  as  in  Amos  iv.  10.  The  sense  will  then  be  this:  "  As- 
syria shall  oppress  thee,  as  Egypt  did  before."  An  entirely  different  con- 
struction of  this  whole  clause  is  that  given  by  Junius  and  Tremellius,  who 
make  God  himself  the  subject  of  the  verbs  ns?;!  and  N^'^  He  shall  smite 
thee  with  the  rod  {i.e.  with  the  Assyrian,  so  called  in  ver.  5),  hut  his  staff 
he  will  lift  up  for  thee  {i.e.  for  thy  deliverance),  as  he  did  in  Eyypd  (when 
the  Red  Sea  was  divided  by  the  rod  of  Moses).  This  construction,  though 
ingenious,  is  to  be  rejected,  on  the  ground  that  it  supposes  an  antithesis, 
and  changes  and  to  hut  without  necessity,  refers  the  rod  and  staff  to  dif- 
ferent subjects,  although  both  are  applied  to  the  Assyrian  in  ver.  5,  and 
gives  the  preposition  ?y  the  sense  of  for  or  in  behalf  of  ,  which  it  cannot 
naturally  have  in  this  connection,  especiall}'  when  following  the  verb  i^^^\ 

25.  This  verse  assigns  a  reason  for  the  exhortation  not  to  fear  in  ver.  24. 
For  yet  a  very  little,  and  ir rat li  is  at  an  end,  a)id  my  anyer  (shall  go  forth,  or 
tend)  to  their  destruction,  i.e.  the  destruction  of  the  enemy.  Interpreters 
are  not  agreed  upon  the  question  whether  the  first  clause  has  reference  to 
that  destruction  also,  or  to  the  restoration  of  God's  people  to  his  favour. 
Ivimchi,  Luther,  Cahan,  Clericus,  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Augusti,  Rosenmiiller, 
Hitzig,  and  Hendewerk,  refer  both  DI?t  and  ''SN  to  God's  dis})leasure  with 
Assyria,  and  this  seems  to  be  the  sense  designed  to  be  conveyed  by  the 
Enghsh  version.  n?3  will  then  mean  to  exhaust  or  sate  itself.  But  Jarchi 
Junius,  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  l^arnes,  De 
Wette,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Knobel,  refer  DJ?!  to  God's  anger  against  Israel,  and 
*EN  to  his  wrath  against  Assyria.  "  For  yet  a  very  little,  and  the  indignation, 
which  has  caused  these  sufferings  to  my  people,  shall  be  ended,  and  my 
wrath  shall  turn  to  the  destruction  of  their  enemies."  The  only  objection  to 
this  exposition  is,  that  it  supposes  an  ellipsis  of  some  verb  in  the  last  clause, 
and  in  that  respect  is  not  so  simple  as  the  other,  which  construes  both  the 

nouns  with  i^/S.  In  favour  of  it,  may  be  urged,  not  only  the  authorities 
already  cited,  but  the  fact  that  it  makes  the  connection  with  the  foregoing 

verse  much  more -natural  and  easy — that  it  gives  n73  its  usual  sense  of  being 
terminated,  coming  to  an  end — and  ^V\  its  appropriated  sense  of  God's  dis- 


Ver.  26,  27.J  ISAIAH  X.  241 

pleasure  with  his  own  people.  (Vide  supra,  ver.  5 ;  also  chap.  xxx.  27,  xxviii. 
20 ;  Dan.  viii.  19.)  The  preterite  form  of  n73  is  beautifully  expressive  of 
the  change  as  aheady  past  in  the  view  of  the  Prophet.  This  effect  is  greatly 
weakened  by  a  substitution  of  the  future  [shall  cease)  for  the  past  [has  ceased 
already).  For  Dn^Vnn  (h-om  rhl)  some  M3S.  read  Dn^bn  from  n^3,  and 
Luzzatto  on*  ?3n  (my  wrath  against  the  world  shall  cease). 

26.  The  suddenness  and  completeness  of  the  ruin  threatened  are  ex- 
pressed by  a  comparison  with  two  remarkable  events  in  sacred  history,  the 
slaughter  of  the  Midianltes  by  Gideon,  and  the  overthrow  of  Pharaoh  in  the 
Bed  Sea.  And  Jehovah  of  hosts  shall  raise  up  against  him  (the  Assyrian) 
a  scourge  (or  instrument  of  vengeance)  like  the  smiting  of  Midian  at  the 
rock  Oreb,  and  his  rod  (Jehovah's)  shall  again  be  over  the  sea,  and  he  shall 
lift  it  tip  (again)  as  he  did  in  Egypt  (literally,  in  the  way  of  Egypt,  as  in 
ver.  24).  The  rock  Oreb  is  particularly  mentioned,  because  one  of  the 
Midianitish  princes,  who  had  escaped  from  the  field  of  battle,  was  there 
slain  by  Gideon  ;  and  so  Sennacherib,  although  he  should  survive  the 
slaughter  of  his  host,  was  to  be  slain  at  home  (chap,  xxxvii.  38). — In  the 
last  clause  there  is  a  beautiful  allusion  to  ver.  24.  As  the  Assyrians 
lifted  up  the  rod  over  Israel  in  the  manner  of  Egypt,  so  God  would  lift  up 
the  rod  over  them  in  the  manner  of  Egj^pt.  As  they  were  like  the  Egvp- 
tians  in  their  sin,  so  should  they  now  be  like  them  in  their  punishment. — 
According  to  the  Rabbins,  ^y^  is  something  more  than  ^"^P,  as  flagellum 
is  distinguished  from  scutica  by  Horace.  They  had  lifted  a  rocZ  over  Israel, 
but  God  would  raise  up  a  scourge  against  them. — The  construction  of  the 
last  clause  in  the  English  Bible — and  (as)  his  rod  was  upon  the  sea,  (so) 
shall  he  lift  it  up,  &c. — puts  an  arbitrary  meaning  on  the  particles.  Ac- 
cording to  the  first  construction  given,  his  rod  (shall  be  again)  upon  the 
sea  is  a  poetical  expression  for  "  his  power  shall  again  be  miraculously  dis- 
played."— Cocceius  refers  the  suffix  in  •in;3p  to  "l-ltJ'i:?,  by  which  he  under- 
stands the  SjTO-Grecian  kings,  and  especially  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  who 
invaded  Cyprus,  and  made  an  attempt  upon  Egypt,  but  was  driven  back 
by  the  Bomans.  Hence  he  reads — and  his  (the  Assyrian's)  rod  shall  be 
over  the  sea,  and  he  shall  lift  it  up  (or  one  shall  take  it  away  from  him)  in 
the  way  to  Egypt. 

27.  And  it  shall  be  (happen,  or  come  to  pass)  in  that  day  (when 
this  prediction  is  fufiUed)  that  his  burden  (the  burden  imposed  by  him,  the 
heavy  load  of  Assyrian  oppression,  perhaps  with  special  reference  to  the 
tribute  imposed  upon  Hezekiah)  shall  depart  (be  removed) /?'o??i  thy  shoul- 
der, and  his  yoke  (a  poetical  equivalent  to  burden)  from  thy  neck  (0  Is- 
rael !),  and  the  yoJce  (itself)  shall  be  destroyed  (or  broken  off)  because  of 
(literally, /rowi  the  face  of)  oil  (or  fatness  or  anointing).  The  only  diffi- 
culty lies  in  the  concluding  words,  which  have  been  variously  under- 
stood. Some  have  attempted  to  remove  the  difficulty  by  a  change  of  text. 
Thus  Lowth  reads  D3D3Ei>  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint  (acri  ruv 
uifMuv) ;  Seeker  ''^'^  "'JS^  on  account  of  my  name,  or  pti>  ''33D,  by  the  sons  of 
oil ;  J.  D.  Michaelis  (for  ?3n)  ^5n  the  band  of  the  yoke.  Of  those  who 
retain  the  common  text,  some  take  V^P  in  its  usual  sense  of  oil,  and  sup- 
pose an  allusion  to  the  softening  of  the  yoke  with  oil,  or  to  its  preservation 
by  it.  "  Whereas  yokes  are  commonly  preserved  by  oil,  this  on  the  con- 
trary shall  be  destroyed  by  it  "  (Kocher).  But  in  this  interpretation,  the 
explanatory  fact  is  arbitrarily  assumed.     Others  take  l^*r^'  in  the  sense  of 

VOL.  I.  Q 


242  ISAIAH  X.  [Vkr.  28. 

fat  or  fatness,  and  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  rejection  of  the  yoke  by  a  fat 
bullock,  Deut.  xxxii.  15  ;  Hos.  iv.  16,  x.  11  (Gesenius),  or  to  the  bursting 
of  the  yoke  by  the  increasing  fatness  of  the  bullock's  neck  (Hitzig,  Hende- 
werk,  or  to  the  wearing  away  of  the  yoke  by  the  neck,  instead  of  the  neck 
by  the  yoke  (Ivimchi).  Of  those  who  give  this  sense  to  ]^'^\  some  give  to 
*?.S  its  strict  sense,  face.  Thus  Doderlein — the  yoke  shall  be  destroyed 
from  off  the  fat  faced,  i.e.  prosperous.  Others  read  tlie  yoke  shall  he  de- 
stroyed by  the  fatness  {i.e.  the  excessive  wealth  and  prosperity  of  the  Assy- 
rian empire) — ov  before  the  increasing  iJroupcrity  of  Judah.  Knobel  sup- 
poses the  face  of  the  bullock  to  be  meant  (compare  Job  xli.  6),  and  with 
J,  D.  Michaelis  reading  "P^D,  understands  the  verse  as  meaning  that  the 
yoke  shall  fii'st  slip  from  the  shoulder  of  the  animal,  then  from  its  neck, 
and  lastly  from  \i&  fat  face  or  head.  Jerome  and  Vitriuga  understand  by 
Jl?^  the  unction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  a  spirit  of  grace  and  supplications, 
with  allusion  to  the  influence  of  Hezekiah's  prayers.  Grotius  and  Dathe 
follow  Jarchi  and  Kimchi  in  explaining  \'<^'^'  as  an  abstract  used  for  a  con- 
crete, anointing  for  anointed  one,  which  they  apply  to  Hezekiah.  The 
Targum  gives  the  same  construction,  but  applies  the  word  to  the  Messiah, 
in  which  it  is  followed  by  Calvin  and  Henderson.  The  general  mean- 
ing of  the  verse  is  plain,  as  a  prediction  of  deliverance  from  Assyrian 
bondage. 

28.    From   the   time   of  the   Assyrian's  overthrow   the   Prophet   now 
reverts  to  that  of  his  invasion,  which  he  describes  in  the  most  vivid  manner 
by  rapidly  enumerating  the  main  points  of  his  march  from  the  frontier  of 
Judah  to  the  gates  of  Jerusalem.     From  the  geographical  minuteness  and 
precision  of  this  passage,  Eichhorn  and  Hitzig  have  inferred  that  it  was 
written  after  the  event,  because  Isaiah  could  not  know  what  route  Sennacherib 
would  take.     Ewald  supposes  the  description  to  be  drawn  from  what  had 
actually  taken  place  in  former  cases,  /.  e.  from  the  route  of  the  Assyrians  on 
previous  occasions,  but  applied  to  an  event  still  future.    Gesenius  and  Hende- 
werk  regard  the  description  as  ideal  and  intended  to  express,  in  a  poetical 
manner,  the  quarter  from  which  the  invasion  was  to  come  and  its  general 
direction,  by  rapidly  enumerating  certain  places  as  the  points  through  which 
it  was  to  pass.     The  same  position  is  maintained  in  Robinson's  Researches 
(vol.  ii.  p.  149),  on  the  ground  that  the  road  here  traced  could  never  have 
been  commonly  used,  because  impracticable  from  the  nature  of  the  gi'ound. 
If  passable  at  all,  however,  it  may  well  have  been  adopted  in  a  case  of  bold 
invasion,  where  surprise  was  a  main  object.     The  difficulties  of  the  route  in 
question  must  be  slight  compared  with  those  by  which  Hannibal  and  Na- 
poleon crossed  the  Alps.     It  is  therefore  not  impossible  nor  even  improbable, 
that  Isaiah  intended  to  delineate  the  actual  course  taken  by  Sennacherib. 
At  the  same  time  this  is  not  a  necessary  supposition,  since  we  may  conceive 
the  Prophet  standing  in  vision  on  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  and  looking  to- 
"wards  the  quarter  from  which  the  invasion  was  to  come,  enumerating  cer- 
tain intervening  points  without  intending  to  predict  that  he  would  really 
pass  through  them.     In  this  case,  the  more  difficult  the  route  described,  the 
better  suited  would  it  be  to  express  the  idea  that  the  enemy  would  come 
in  spite  of  all  opposing  obstacles.     J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  the  invasion 
here  described  to  he  ihat  of  Nebuchadnezzar — partly  lecause  that  supposi- 
tion, as  he  thinks,  makes  the  connection  between  this  and  the  next  chapter 
clearer  and  more  natural — partly  because  the  Babylonian  army  did  pursue 
this  course,  whereas  Sennacherib  came  against  Jerusalem  from  the  south 
(Isa.  xxxvi.  2).     That  there  is  no  weight  in  the  former  ai'gument,  wiU  be 


Yee.  28.]  ISAIAH  X.  243 

shewn  in  the  proper  place.     That  there  is  little  in  the  other,  will  appear 
from  the  consideration,  that  the  history  contains  no  account  of  Sennacherib's 
own  march  upon  the  city,  but  only  of  Rabshakeh's  embassy  from  Lachish, 
and  it  is  expressly  said  that  when  that  officer  rejoined  his  master,  he  had 
already  advanced  further  to  the  north.     It  is  easy  to  imagine,  therefore, 
that  lie  may  have  chosen  a  circuitous  and  difficult  approach,  in  order  to 
take  the  city  by  surprise.     Besides  the  inconclusivcness  of  these  objections 
to  the  old  interpretation,  that  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  is  exposed  to  very  serious 
objections,  for  example,  that  the  foregoing  context  has  relation  to  Assyria, 
without  any  intimation  of  a  change  of  subject ;  that  there  is  no  hint  of  the 
citj^'s  being  taken,  much  less  destroyed ;  that  the  description  in  the  text  is 
not  one  of  a  deliberate,  protracted  occupation,  but  of  a  rapid  and  transient 
incursion  ;  that  the  march  is  immediately  followed  by  a  gi'eat  reverse  and 
sudden  overthrow,  whereas  Nebuchadnezzar  was  entirely  successful.     On 
these  and  other  grounds,  the  passage  is  applied  by  most  interpreters  to  the 
Assyrians,  although  some  suppose  Sennacherib's  personal  approach  to  be 
described,  and  others  that  of  his  representative  (Junius,  Robinson,  &c.) — 
The  places  here  enumerated  seem  to  have  belonged  chiefly  or  wholly  to  the 
tribes  of  Benjamin  and  Judah.     Some  of  them  are  still  in  existence,  and 
the  site  of  several  has  been  recently  determined  by  the  personal  observa- 
tions and  inquiries  of  Robinson  and  Smith.     The  catalogue  begins  at  the 
frontier  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  suggests,  at  the 
first  place  conquered  by  the  Israelites  on  taking  possession  of  the  land. 
The  language  is  precisely  that  of  an  eye-witness  describing  at  the  moment 
what  he  actually  sees.     He  is  come  to  Aiatli — he  is  passed  to  Migron — to 
Michmash  he  erdrusts  his  baggage.     Although  the  form  Aiath  nowhere  else 
occurs,  it  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  the  same  with  Ai,  the  ancient  royal 
city  of  the  Canaanites,  destroyed  by  Joshua  (Josh.  \dii.  1),  and  afterwards 
rebuilt  (Ezra  ii.  28  ;  Neh.  viii.  32).     It  is  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  sup- 
pose that  the  name  here  denotes  the  spot  or  the  region  in  which  Ai  once 
stood,  as  explained  by  Junius  (Hajanam  regionem  versus).     The  ancient 
Ai  was  situated  on  a  height  to  the  north-east  of  Jerusalem.     Eusebius  de- 
scribes it  as  in  ruins  when  he  wrote,  and  Jerome  saj^s  its  remains  were  scarcely 
visible  in  his  day.     According  to  Robinson,  its  site  is  probably  still  marked 
by  certain  ruins,  south  of  Deir  Diwan,  an  hour  from  Bethel. — The  present 
form,  he  passes,  represents  the  thing  as  actually  taking  place  ;  the  preterite, 
he  has  jjassed,  implies  that  he  has  scarcely  reached  a  place  before  he  leaves 
it,  and  is  therefore  more  expressive  of  his  rapid  movements.    Either  is  better 
than  the  future  form  adopted  by  the  ancient  versions.     According  to  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  he  passes  by  Migron  without  entering ;  according  to  others,  he 
passes  to  Migron  from  Ai ;  according  to  Gessenius  and  the  other  recent  ver- 
sions, he  passes  through  Migron,  as  the  second  landmark  on  the  route  of 
the  invaders.     The  precise  situation  of  this  place  is  now  unknown,  as  it  is 
mentioned  only  here  and  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  2,  from  which  text  it  would  seem 
to  have  been  near  to  Gibeah. — Michmash  is  still  in  existence  under  the 
almost  unchanged  name  of  Mukhmas,  to  the  north-east  of  Jeba,  on  the  slope 
of  a  steep  valley.     The  place  is  now  desolate,  but  exhibits  signs  of  fonner 
strength,  foundations  of  hewn  stone  and  prostrate  columns.     Some  give  to 
T'i??-  here  its  secondary  sense  of  depositing  his  baggage,  stores,  &c.  (called 
in  old  English,  carriages),  i.  e.  merely  while  he  halted  (Barnes),  or  leaving 
them  behind  to  expedite  his  march  (Grotius),  or  because  not  needed  for  the 
taking  of  Jerusalem  (Jerome),  or  on  account  of  the  difficult  passage  men- 
tioned in  the  next  verse  (Hendewerk). 


244  ISAIAH  X  [Ver.  29,  80. 

29.  They  have  passed  the  pass,  a  narrow  passage  between  Michmash 
and  Geba  (1  Sam.  xiii.  3,  5,  &c.),  a  spot  no  doubt  easily  maintained 
against  an  enemy.  Their  passing  it  implies  that  they  met  with  no  resist- 
ance, or  had  overcome  it,  and  that  there  was  now  little  or  nothing  to  impede 
their  march.  In  Geha  they  have  taken  tip  their  lodying  (literally,  lodged 
a  lodging).  Geha  appears,  from  1  Kings  xv.  22,  to  have  been  on  or  near 
the  line  between  Benjamin  and  Judah.  There  is  a  small  village  now  called 
Jeba,  half  in  ruins,  with  large  hewn  stones  and  the  remains  of  a  square 
tower,  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  valley  from  the  ancient  Michmash.  This 
place  Ilobinson  and  Smith  supposed  at  first  to  be  Geha,  but  afterwards 
concluded  that  it  must  be  Gihcah  of  Saul,  and  that  the  site  of  Geba  must 
be  farther  down,  where  they  heard  of  ruins,  but  had  not  time  to  explore  them 
(vol.  ii.  pp.  114,  115).     Knobel  alleges  that  Geba  and  Gilbeah  of  Saul  were 

one  and  the  same  place,  and  adopts  the  Vulgate  version  of  the  phrase  fvO 
•13?  (Gaba  sedes  nostra),  which  is  also  retained  by  Barnes  (Geba  is  a  lodging- 
place  for  us).  This  supposes  the  AssjTians  to  be  suddenly  introduced  as 
speaking,  to  avoid  which  abrupt  change  of  construction  Lowth,  Doederlein, 
and  Dathe,  adopt  the  reading  of  the  Targum  10^  for  13^.  Most  interpreters, 
however,  follow  Aben  Ezra  in  explaining  13?  as  a  verb  from  j-v.  The  con- 
struction of  the  verb  with  its  derivative  noun  is  analogous  to  that  oi  dreaming 
a  dream,  and  other  like  expressions.  The  form  of  the  original  is  imitated 
by  Junius  and  Tremellius  (in  divcrsorium  diverterunt).  This  construction 
of  -13?  as  a  verb  is  favoured  by  the  parallelism,  n"l3yo  T\'2V  being  a  similar 
combination  of  a  noun  with  its  verbal  root.  Thus  far  he  has  described  what 
the  Assyrians  themselves  do — they  cross  the  line  at  Ajath — pass  through 
Migi'on — leave  their  baggage  at  Michmash — lodge  at  Geba.  Now  he  de- 
scribes what  the  places  themselves  do — Ramah  trembles  ;  Giheah  of  Said 
flees.  Ramah  was  a  city  of  Benjamin,  near  Geba,  but  farther  from  Jeru- 
salem, It  is  still  in  existence  as  Er-ram,  which  is  the  masculine  form  of  the 
one  here  used,  with  the  Arabic  article  prefixed.  It  is  about  half  a  mile 
nearh'  due  west  of  Jeba,  but  hidden  from  it  by  intervening  heights  (Robin- 
son, vol.  ii.  pp.  108-114).  It  is  two  hours  north  of  Jerusalem,  on  the 
eastern  side  of  the  road  to  Nablus.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  describe  it  as  a 
small  village,  six  Roman  miles  from  Jerusalem.  The  identity  of  this  place 
with  the  ancient  Ramah  was  long  lost  sight  of,  but  has  been  clearly  ascer- 
tained by  Smith  and  Robinson.  Eamah  trembles  (or  is  afraid)  at  the 
enemy's  approach,  a  strong  and  beautiful  personification,  or  the  place  may 
be  simply  put  for  its  inhabitants,  as  in  the  Targum.  The  trembling  and 
flight  of  these  towns  are  naturally  represented  as  occurring  while  the  enemy 
was  resting  at  Geba.  It  may  imply  either  that  Ramah  was  not  in  the  direct 
line  of  the  march,  but  within  sight  and  hearing  of  it,  or  on  the  contrary,  that 
it  was  the  next  place  to  be  reached,  and  was  trembling  in  apprehension  of  it. 
A  still  stronger  metaphor  is  used  as  to  the  next  place.  Giheah  of  Said — so 
called  because  it  was  his  birth-place  and  residence,  and  to  distinguish  it  from 
others  of  the  same  name — is  fled.  There  is  here  a  rapid  but  marked  climax. 
"While  Ramah  trembles,  Giheah  flees. 

30.  To  terror  and  flight  he  now  adds  an  audible  expression  of  dis- 
tress, representing  one  place  as  crj'ing,  another  as  listening,  and  according 
to  some  writers,  a  third  responding.  At  the  same  time  he  exchanges  the 
language  of  description  for  that  of  direct  personal  address.  Cry  aloud,  daugh- 
ter Gallim  (or  daughter  of  Gallim)  ;  hearken  Laishah,  ah  poor  Anathoth  ! 
The  site  of  Gallim  is  no  longer  known,  but  it  was  no  doubt  somewhere  in  the 


Vek.  31.J  ISAIAH  X.  245 

neighbourhood  of  Gibeah,  The  personification  is  made  more  distinct  by  the  use 
of  the  word  dawjhter,  whether  employed  simply  for  that  purpose  and  applied 
to  the  town  itself,  as  explained  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  (Stadt  Gallim)  and  Kosen- 
miiller  (oppidum  Gallim),  with  or  without  allusion  to  its  beauty  (Barnes) — or, 
as  in  many  other  cases,  to  the  population,  as  an  individual.  The  Targum  and 
August!  read  the  name  Bath- gallim.  Grotius  and  others  render  T\^w  ''y'^\>T\ 
cause  it  (thy  voice)  to  be  heard  to  Laish  (with  H  directive),  /.  e.  to  the  north- 
ern extremity  of  the  country,  where  stood  the  to^vn  of  Dan,  anciently  called 
Laish,  and  often  coupled  with  Beersheba  to  express  the  whole  extent  of 
Canaan — or  to  Laish,  a  town  near  the  others  here  mentioned,  but  no  longer 
in  existence.  Others  suppose  the  name  to  be  Laishah,  and  govern  it 
directly  by  the  verb — cause  Laishah  to  hear — but  ^''K'ipn  always  means  to 
listen.  Luther,  Lowth,  Augusti,  Henderson,  and  Umbreit,  suppose  an  apos- 
trophe to  Laishah  itself — hearken,  O  Laishah  !  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Mau- 
rer,  and  De  Wette,  hearken  to  (or  towards)  Laish,  which  is  then  supposed 
to  be  crying  itself,  and  the  call  to  listen  is  addressed  to  Gallim  or  the 
next  place  mentioned,  which  implies  a  close  proximit}-.  Anathoth,  now 
Andta,  a  sacerdotal  city  of  Benjamin,  built  upon  a  broad  ridge,  an  hour  and 
a  quarter  from  Jerusalem.  Ecclesiastical  tradition  has  assigned  another  site 
to  Anathoth,  between  Jerusalem  and  Ramleh ;  but  the  true  site  has  been 
clearly  ascertained  and  fixed  by  Robinson  and  Smith  (vol.  ii.  p.  109).  There 
are  still  remains  of  an  ancient  wall  of  hewn  stone,  old  foundations,  and  frag- 
ments of  columns.  It  commands  an  extensive  view,  and  from  it  the  travel- 
lers just  mentioned  beheld  several  of  the  places  here  enumerated.  Lowth 
and  Ewald  take  iT'jy  as  a  verb  with  a  suffix,  Hendewerk  as  a  verb  with  a 
paragogic  letter,  meaning  answer  or  answer  her,  0  Anathoth  !  Lowth  sup- 
poses an  allusion  to  the  primary  meaning  of  the  name,  viz.  answers,  i.  e. 
echoes  or  reverberations  from  the  hills  by  which  the  city  was  surrounded. 
Hitzig  takes  iT'JV  as  a  proper  name  with  n''2,  left  out  or  understood  before  it, 
of  which  ellipsis  there  are  several  examples,  and  denoting  Bethany,  now 
called  Elaziriijah  (or  the  town  of  Lazarus),  and  situated  on  the  eastern  de- 
clivity of  the  mount  of  Olives.  (See  Robinson's  Palestine,  vol.  ii.  p.  101). 
But  the  majority  of  writers,  old  and  new,  make  iT'JJ?,  as  in  other  places 
where  it  occurs,  the  feminine  of  ''^5/  poor,  afflicted,  miserable,  and  descriptive, 
not  of  its  ordinary  state,  as  a  poor  mean  village,  but  of  the  Prophet's  sym- 
pathy in  view  of  the  danger  with  which  Anathoth  was  threatened.  The 
introduction  of  the  epithet  in  this  case  only  may  perhaps  be  ascribed  to  a 
designed  paronomasia  between  the  cognate  forms  n^3J?  and  mnjy.  The  posi- 
tion of  the  adjective,  though  certainly  unusual,  is  not  unparalleled,  there 
being  instances  enough  to  justify  its  explanation  as  a  case  of  emphatic  in- 
version. These  two  words  are  construed  as  an  independent  clause  by  Doe- 
derlein  (misera  est  Anathoth),  which  Gesenius  thinks  admissible,  although 
he  prefers  the  vocative  construction  of  the  Vulgate  (paupercula  Anathoth  !). 
31.  Madmenah  wanders  (or  removes  from  her  place)  ;  the  inhabitants 
of  Gebim  flee  (or  came  to  flee,  i.e.  carry  o^' their  goods).  These  places  are 
no  longer  in  existence,  nor  are  they  mentioned  elsewhere.  The  Madmen 
spoken  of  by  Jeremiah  (xlviii.  2),  was  a  town  of  Moab,  and  Madmannah 
(Jos.  XV.  21)  was  too  far  south.  In  this  verse,  for  the  fii'st  time,  the  in- 
habitants are  expressly  mentioned  and  distinguished  from  the  place  itself. 
But  Hiller  (in  his  Onomasticon)  makes  ^5^')  ^  V^^^  of  ^^^  proper  name 
{Joshebehaygelvn),  and  Jerome,  on  the  contrary,  makes  Q''?^  an  appellative 
(inhabitants   of  the   hills).     The  Vulgate   renders  -IfJ/n   by  coifortamini, 


24(5  ISAIAU  X.  Ver.  32,  33. 

deriving  it  apparently  from  HJ?,  and  a  similar  version  is  given  in  the  Peshito. 
The  English  Version  (jalhcr  themselves  to  Jlee,  is  substantially  the  same 
with  thiit  of  Calvin  and  Junius.  According  to  Vitringa,  it  means  to  ilee 
with  violence  and  haste.  Gesenius,  in  his  Commentary,  gives  it  the  simple 
sense  of  fleeing  ;  but  in  the  second  edition  of  his  Geraian  Version,  and  in 
his  Thesaurus,  he  explains  it  as  a  causative,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Hit- 
zig,  Maurer,  and  Knobel. 

32.  This  verse  conducts  him  to  the  last  stage  of  his  progi-ess,  to  a 
point  so  near  the  Holy  City  that  he  may  defy  it  thence.  Yet  to-day  in  Nob 
(he  is)  to  stand  ;  (and  there)  uUl  he  shake  his  hand  (a  gesture  of  menace 
and  defiance)  of/ainst  the  mountain  of  the  house  (or  daughter)  of  Zion  [i.  e. 
mount  Zion  itself)  the  hill  of  Jerusalem.  Nob  was  a  sacerdotal  city  of 
Benjamin,  near  Anathoth  (Neh.  xi.  32),  and  according  to  the  Talmud 
and  Jerome,  within  sight  of  Jerusalem.  Robinson  and  Smith  explored  the 
ridge  of  Olivet  for  traces  of  this  town,  but  without  success.  The  Nob  here 
mentioned  is  no  doubt  the  same  that  Saul  destroyed,  although  there  was 
another  in  the  plain  towards  Lydda,  which  Jerome  seems  to  identify  with 
this. — The  first  clause  has  been  variously  explained,  according  to  the  sense 
put  upon  "lOj;  as  signifying  rest  or  arrival,  and  upon  01*0  as  an  indefinite 
expression  for  a  day,  or  a  specific  one  for  this  day  or  to-day.  Joseph  Kim- 
chi,  J.  D.  Michaehs,  and  Rosenmiiller,  understand  the  clause  to  mean  that 
yet  to-day  (but  no  longer,  it  will  be  safe  for  the  inhabitants)  to  stay  in  Nob. 
Maurer  and  Henderson  explain  it  to  mean  yet  a  day  (or  one  day  longer,  he 
is)  to  remain  in  Nob.  Of  these  and  other  constructions  which  have  been 
proposed,  the  best  is  that  which  makes  the  clause  mean  that  to-day  (before 
to-mon'ow^)  he  shall  stand  (/.  e.  arrive)  i)i  Nob — or  that  which  makes  it  mean 
yet  this  day  (he  is)  to  stand  (/.  e.  rest)  i)i  Nob  (before  commencing  his  attack). 
This  last,  which  is  given  by  the  latest  writers,  is  supposed  to  be  most  in 
accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  verb. — According  to  the  common 
explanation  of  the  phrase  P'V  ^13  as  meaning  Jerusalem  itself  {vide  supra 
chap.  i.  8),  the  mountain  of  the  daughter  of  Zion  coincides  exactly  with 
the  parallel  phrase,  /;///  of  Jerusalem.  The  kethib  l^V  n^3  can  only  mean 
the  temple,  taking  Zion  in  the  widest  sense  as  meaning  the  whole  eminence 
on  which  Jerusalem  was  built.  This  reading  is  sustained  by  none  of  the 
ancient  versions  but  the  Targum,  and  although  nin''  n^3  in  is  no  unusual 
combination,  the  phrase  JV^'  r\''2  "in  does  not  occur  elsewhere. — In  this  verse 
the  Targnm  introduces  a  description  of  Sennacherib's  army,  and  a  soliloquy 
of  Sennacherib  himself,  neither  of  which  has  the  slightest  foundation  in  the 
original. 

33.  To  the  triumphant  march  and  proud  defiance  now  succeeds  abruptly 
the  tremendous  downfall  of  the  enemy  himself,  in  describing  which,  the 
Prophet  resumes  the  figure  dropped  at  ver.  19,  and  represents  the  catastro- 
phe as  the  sudden  and  violent  prostration  of  a  forest.  Behold,  the  Lord, 
Jehovah  of  hosts,  (is)  lopping  (or  about  to  lop)  the  branch  (of  this  great  tree) 
uith  terror  (or  tremendous  violence),  and  the  (trees)  hiyh  of  stature  (shall 
he)  felled,  and  the  lofty  ones  brouyht  low.  According  to  Knobel,  the  excision 
of  the  ornamental  crown  or  head-di-ess  of  the  tree  is  mentioned  first,  be- 
cause the  destroying  power  is  to  be  conceived  as  darting  down  from  heaven 
like  a  thunderbolt,  not  creeping  upwards  from  the  earth,  like  the  spreading 
fire  in  ver.  17,  and  in  the  same  verse  of  the  foregoing  chapter.  Jerome 
applies  these  two  last  verses  to  the  death  of  Christ,  and  the  consequent 
downfall  of  the  Jewish  State  ;  Calvin,  Cocceius,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar,     But  these  interpretations, 


Yee.  34.]  ISAIAH  X.  247 

although  recommended  by  a  seeming  coherence  with  the  followiug  chapter, 
are  at  variance  with  the  foregoing  context,  where  Sennacherib's  invasion  is 
described,  and  with  the  scope  of  the  whole  passage,  which  is  to  console  the 
Jews  in  \iew  of  that  event. — HSn,  when  followed  by  an  active  participle, 
commonly  indicates  a  proximate  faturity,  at  least  with  respect  to  the  per- 
ceptions of  the  writer. — According  to  Kimchi,  the  divine  names  introduced 
imply  that  Sennacherib  had  hitherto  supposed  himself  to  be  without  a  mas- 
ter, but  w^as  now  to  learn  his  error. — Hendewerk  supplies  appears  before 
P|J;DJD  ;  but  is  simpler  and  therefore  better  to  supply  the  present  of  the  verb 
to  he. — iTlSS  (from  "1^3,  to  adorn)  means  an  ornamental  branch,  or  the 
branches  considered  as  the  heauty  of  the  tree. — n^"iyo  properly  means  terror, 
and  in  this  case  sudden  and  terrific  violence.  It  is  more  vigorously  ren- 
dered by  Henderson  {a  tremendous  blow),  and  Lowth  {a  dreadful  crash). 
The  2  denotes  not  so  much  the  manner  as  the  means,  not  only  violently, 
but  by  violence.  Lofty  of  stature  is  not  to  be  applied  to  men  directly,  as 
descriptive  either  of  their  pride  or  their  appearance,  but  to  trees  as  repre- 
senting the  Assyrians  in  general,  or  their  chief  men  in  particular.  For  the 
same  cause,  QTISJ  should  not  be  rendered  haughty,  an  epithet  which  cannot 
be  applied  to  trees,  but  high  or  lofty. 

34.  And  he  (Jehovah)  shall  cut  down  (or  away)  the  thickets  of  the  forest 
(the  Assyrian  army)  nith  iron,  {i.  e.  with  an  instrument  of  iron,  as  an  axe), 
and  this  Lebanon  (this  wooded  mountain,  this  enormous  forest,  still  re- 
ferring to  the  host  of  the  Assyrians)  with  (or  b}")  a  mighty  one  shall  fall.  It 
is  clear  that  the  iron  of  this  verse,  and  the  Jire  of  ver.  17,  denote  one  and 
the  same  thing,  both  implying  that  the  forest  was  to  perish,  not  by  slow 
decay,  but  by  sudden  violence,  which  shews  the  absurdity  of  giving  a  spe- 
cific sense  to  all  the  particulars  in  such  a  picture.  Thus  the  thickets  are 
probably  mentioned  only  to  complete  the  picture  of  a  forest  totally  destroyed, 
though  Kimchi  understands  this  as  an  emblem  of  Sennacherib's  counsellors, 
by  whose  devices  he  had  been  entangled,  while  Grotius,  Vitringa,  and  others, 
make  it  signify  the  common  soldiers  as  distinguished  from  the  chiefs  before 
described  as  trees,  and  Hitzig  applies  it  to  the  whole  mixed  multitude  of 
the  Assyrians.  The  general  figure  of  a  forest  is  made  more  specific  by  re- 
ferring to  Lebanon,  a  moimtaiu  celebrated  for  its  woods.  Ezekiel  represents 
Sennacherib  himself  as  a  cedar  of  Lebanon  (Ezek.  xxxi.  3).  The  name  is 
not  here  put  for  the  land  of  Israel,  of  v.'hich  mount  Lebanon  was  the  north- 
ern boundarj^  nor  for  Jerusalem  or  the  temple,  in  allusion  to  the  cedar- 
wood  employed  in  their  construction. — Cahdn  and  others  understand  "^"''!I^?3 
as  an  adverbial  phrase,  meaning  mightily  or  violently  ;  but  most  interpreters 
explain  it  to  mean  by  a  mighty  one.  This  is  applied  by  Gesenius  and 
Maurerto  God  himself — by  Cocceius,  Schmidius,  Alting,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
to  Nebuchadnezzar — by  Grotius,  to  the  son  of  Sennacherib  who  slew  him 
■ — by  several  of  the  Kabbins  to  the  destroying  angel — by  KosenmllUer  and 
Hitzig  to  the  Messiah — by  Vitringa  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  to  the  Messiah  and 
the  angel  considered  as  identical.  To  these  interpretations  may  be  added, 
as  a  mere  suggestion,  that  "i'''^'^?  is  possibly  an  epithet  descriptive  of  ^p?  in 
the  preceding  clause — and  he  shall  cut  down  the  thickets  of  the  forest  with 
iron  {i.  e.  with  the  axe),  and  this  Lebanon  shall  fall  by  a  mighty  one  {i.  e. 
by  a  mighty  axe).  This  would  be  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  figurative 
caste  of  the  whole  sentence,  while  at  the  same  time  it.  would  leave  the 
application  of  the  terms  as  open  as  it  can  be  upon  any  other  supposition. 
^^i^?  is  taken  as  a  passive  form  by  Luther,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Hitzig,  Hende- 
werk, De  Wette,  Ewald.     Its  agreement  with  the  plural  "'???  may  in  that 


218  ISAIAH  XI.  [Ver.  1. 

case  titber  be  resolved  into  a  common  licence  of  Hebrew  syntax,  or  ex- 
plained by  supposing  the  agi'eemcnt  to  be  really  with  "iV!.  It  is  best,  bow- 
ever,  to  take  ^i^?  as  a  Piel  of  less  usual  form  (Nordbeimer,  §  238)  governing 
*55P  and  indefinitely  construed  {one  ahull  cut),  or  agreeing  with  Jehovah 
understood. 


CHAPTER  XL 

This  chapter  is  occupied  with  promises  of  restoration  and  deliverance, 
external  safety  and  internal  peace,  to  God's  own  people,  as  contrasted  with 
the  ruin  previously  threatened  to  their  enemies.  Borrowing  bis  imagery 
from  the  full  of  the  Assyrian  forest,  just  before  predicted,  the  Prophet  repre- 
sents a  shoot  as  springing  from  the  prostrate  trunk  of  Jesse,  or  rather  from 
bis  roots,  and  invested  by  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  with  all  the  necessary 
attributes  of  a  righteous  judge  and  ruler,  vers.  i.  4.  The  pacific  effect  of  the 
.  Messiah's  reign  is  then  described  by  the  beautiful  figure  of  wild  and  domes- 
tic animals  dwelling  and  feeding  together,  and  of  children  unhurt  by  the 
most  venomous  reptiles ;  to  which  is  added  an  express  prediction  that  all 
mutual  injuries  shall  cease  in  consequence  of  the  universal  prevalence  of  the 
knowledge  of  Jehovah,  vers.  5-9.  To  these  figures  borrowed  from  the 
animal  creation,  the  Prophet  now  adds  others  from  the  history  of  Israel,  but 
intended  to  express  the  same  idea.  The  Messiah  is  here  represented  as  a 
signal  set  up  to  the  nations,  gathering  the  outcasts  of  his  people  from  all 
quarters,  and  uniting  them  again  into  one  undivided  body,  free  from  all 
sectional  and  party  animosities,  vers.  10-13.  Under  figures  of  the  same 
kind,  the  triumph  of  the  church  is  then  represented  as  a  conquest  over  the 
old  enemies  of  Israel,  especially  thos6  nearest  to  the  Holy  Laud ;  while  the 
interposition  of  God's  power  to  effect  this  and  the  preceding  promises  is 
vividly  described  as  a  division  of  the  Ked  Sea  and  Euphrates,  and  a 
deliverance  from  Egypt  and  Assyria,  vers.  14-16. 

The  evidently  figurative  character  of  some  parts  of  this  chapter  seems  to 
furnish  a  sufficient  key  to  the  interpretation  of  those  parts  which  in  them- 
selves would  be  more  doubtful. 

1.  The  figure  of  the  preceding  verse  is  continued  but  applied  to  a  new 
subject,  the  downfall  of  the  house  of  David  and  the  Jewish  State,  which  is 
contrasted  with  the  downfall  of  Assyria.  The  AssjTian  forest  was  to  fall 
-'  for  ever,  but  that  of  Judah  was  to  sprout  again.  And  there  shall  come  forth 
a  twig  (or  ^hooi)  from  the  stock  (or  stump)  of  Jesse,  and  a  Branch  from  his 
roots  shall  f/roiv.     According  to  Aben  Ezra,  Hendewerk   and  others,  this 

•  refers  to  Hezeldab  exclusively,  and  according  to  Grotius  as  a  type  of 
Christ.  But  Hezekiab  was  already  born,  and  the  house  from  which  ho 
sprung  was  not  ih  the  condition  here  described.     Others  refer  it  to  Zerub- 

•  babel,  and  others  to  the  Maccabees,  who  were  not  even  descendants  of 
Jesse.  The  Targum  explicitly  applies  it  to  the  Messiah  (Xs'pO  xn*::'Qj. 
Eichhoni,  Bauer,  Rosenmiiller,  Gesenius,  De  Wette,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  also 

.  apply  it  to  an  ideal  Messiah  whom  Isaiah  looked  for.  The  modern  Jews 
\ .  of  course  suppose  it  to  be  yet  unfulfilled.     The  only  application  of  the 

\  passage  that  can  be  sustained  is  that  to  Jesus  Christ,  who  sprang  from  the 
fiimily  of  Jesse  wbeu  reduced  to  its  lowest  estate,  and  to  whom  alone  llie 
subsequent  description  is  btcrally  applicable.  Abarbenel  objects  ibut 
Christ  was  not  a  descendant  of  Jesse  unless  he  was  really  the  son  of  Joseph. 

jlBut  even  if  Mary  had  been  of  another  tribe,  her  mai-riage  would  entitle  lier 


Yer.  2.J  ISAIAR  XI.  2i9 

ofl'spring  to  be  reckoned  as  a  Son  of  David  ;  much  more  when  she  herself 
was  of  the  same  lineage.     It  is  enough  to  know,  however,  that  the  fact  of 
Christ's  descent  from  David  is  not  only  repeatedly  affirmed,  but  constantly 
presupposed  in  the  New  Testament,  as  a  fact  too  notorious  to  be  called  in 
question  or  to  call  for  proof. — Vll  is  not  the  seed  (Aben  Ezra),  nor  the  root  • 
(Septuagint),  nor  even  the  trunk  or  whole  stem  of  a  tree  (Gesenius,  Hitzig, 
Hendewerk),  but  the  stump  or  part  remaining  above  ground  when  the  tree  • 
is  felled,  as  translated  by  Aquila,  Symmachus  and  Theodotion  (xo'g/xov).  and 
explained   by  Ivimchi  (php  iy  7^;?  IP  TtoO  vJJ^).      Together  with  the  pa- 
rallel term  roots,  it  is  an  emblem  not  of  mere  descent  or  derivation,  as- 
alleged  by  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk,  but  of  derivation  from  a  reduced  and 
almost  extinct  family,  as  explained  by  Calvin,   Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Heug- 
stenberg,  Ewald  and  Umbreit.     Jesse  is  supposed  by  Hitzig  and  Hende- 
werk to  be  named  instead  of  David  for  the  purpose  of  excluding  the  latter,*, 
or  of  intimating  a  correlative  descent  from  the  same  ancestor.     According 
to  Kimchi,  he  is  named  as  the  last  progenitor  before  the  family  attained  to  - 
royal  rank ;  according  to  Umbreit,  simply  to  indicate  the  antiquity  of  the 
house.     Vitringa's  explanation  is  more  probable,  viz.  because  Jesse  resided  A 
at  Bethlehem  where  Christ  was  to  be  born,  and  because  the  family  is  here 
considered  as  reduced  to  the  same  obscure^ condition  in  which  Jesse  lived, 
as  contrasted  with  that  to  which  David  was  exalted,  and  which  the  mention 
of  the  latter  would  naturally  have  recalled  to  mind.     This  last  reason  is 
also  given  by  Calvin  and  Hengstenberg. 

2.  The  person,  whose  origin  and  descent  are  metaphorically  described  in 
the  preceding  verse,  is  here  described  by  his  personal  qualities,  as  one  en-  . 
do  wed  with  the  highest  intellectual  and  moral  gifts  by  the  direct  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.    A7id  upon  him  shall  rest  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah,  a  Spirit 
of  wisdom  and  understandinrj^  a  Spirit  (f  counsel  and  strength,  a  Spirit  of 
knowledge  and  of  the  fear  of  Jehovah.     The  Targum  seems  to  explain  H-'l"! 
nin^  as  the  first  item  in  the  catalogue,  meaning  the  Spirit  of  prophecy  or  • 
inspiration.     Gataker  takes  it  as  the  cause  of  which  the  others  are  effects.  • 
But  Kimchi  more  coi'rggtjy  understands_rt_as  a  general  designation  oLthe  ^ 
self-same  spirit  which  is  afterwards  described  in  detail.     So  Saadias  and  ■ 
AbenTEzra  understand  it — "  the   Spirit  of  Jehovah  which  is  a  Spirit  of 
wisdom,"  &c.     Hengstenberg  understands  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah,  a  stronger 
expression  than  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  former  having  more  explicit  reference 
to  the  government  and  edification  of  the  church.     Gesenius,  as  usual,  ex- 
plains the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  as  an  influence,  but  it  obviously  means  a  person. 
The  following  genitives  do  not  denote  qualities  but  eflects  of  the  Spirit.  • 
The  Spirit  of  Jehovah  is  not  here  described  as  being  himself  wise,  &c.,  but* 
as  the  author  of  wisdom  in  others.     This  is  evident  from  the  last  clause, 
where  the  fear  of  Jehovah  cannot  be  an  attribute  of  his  Spirit,  but  must  bo* 
a  fruit  of  his  influence.     The  qualities  enumerated  are  not  to  be  confounded 
as  mere  syuonymes,  nor  on  the  other  hand  distinguished  with  metaphysical 
precision.     That  the  latter  process  must  be  an  arbitraiy  one  may  be  seen 
by  a  comparison  of  any  two  or  more  attempts  to  define  the  terms  precisely. 
On  the  same  etymological  basis  have  been  founded  the  most  opposite  inter-  - 
pretations.     Thus  the  gift  of  prophetic  inspiration  is  supposed  to  be  intended  • 
both  by  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  (Vitringa),  and  the  Spirit  of  counsel  (Rein- 
hard),  both  suppositions  bemg  perfectly  gratuitous.     When  Hengstenberg, 
who  takes  a  just  view  of  the  principle  on  which  the  passage  ought  to  be 
interpreted,  departs  so  far  from  it  in  practice  as  to  attempt  a  precise  discri- 
mination between  n)D?n  and  <^T'^,  he  proposes  one  directly  opposite  to  that 


250  ISAIAH  XL  [Ver.  3. 

.  proposed  by  Henilewcrk,  though  both  agree  that  one  rehites  to  theoretical 
and  the  other  to  practical  wisdom.  The  truth  is  that  none  of  these 
terms  is  entirely  exclusive  of  the  others.  Wisdom,  understanding,  the 
knowledge  of  God,  the  fear  of  God,  are  all  fomiliar  Scriptural  descriptions 
of  religion  or  piety  in  general.  Wisdom  and  understanding  are  often 
joined  as  equivalent  expressions.  The  latter,  according  to  its  etymology, 
strictly  denotes  the  power  of  discernment  or  discrimination.  Both  are 
applied  to  theoretical  and  practical  wisdom,  and  especially  to  moral  and 
rchgious  subjects.  Counsel  and  strength  are  the  ability  to  plan  and  the 
abilit}'  to  execute,  neither  of  which  can  avail  without  the  other.  The 
knowledge  of  God  does  not  in  itself  mean  the  love  of  him  (Vitringa), 
although  it  may  infer  it  as  a  necessary  consequence.  The  correct  know- 
ledge of  him  certainly  produces  godly  fear  or  holy  reverence,  and  the  two 
are  probably  put  here  for  religion  in  the  general,  and  are  so  explained  in 
the  Septuagint  [yvoja^Mg  %u.i  iuai(3ilai)  and  Vulgate  (scientia3  et  pietatis). 

.  The  six  attributes  here  enumerated  are  grouped  in  three  distinct  pairs  ;  the 
fii-st  and  last  of  which,  as  Hengstenberg  supposes,  have  respect  to  personal 
qualities,  the  second  to  such  as  are  official ;  but  Ewald  distinguishes  the 
first  as  theoretical,  the  second  as  practical,  the  third  as  spiritual  or  religious. 
Hendewerk  ingeniously  and  earnestly  maintains  that  all  these  epithets  relate 

■i  to  Hezeldah,  and  are  verified  in  his  history — the  wisdom  in  2  liings  xviii.  7, 
he  acted  ivisehj  (/''Dti'"')  xvliithersoever  he  xcent — the  spirit  of  counsel  and  might 
in  2  Kings  xviii.  20,  and  in  his  subduing  the  Philistines  (2  Kings  xviii.  8), 
lie.  The  simple  statement  of  this  exposition  is  sufficient  to  refute  it.  The 
only  person  in  whom  the  terms  of  this  prediction  have  been  verified  is  Jesus 
Christ,  whose  wisdom  displayed  itself  in  early  life,  and  is  expressly  ascribed 
to  a  special  divine  influence  ;  who  proved  himself  a  "  discerncr  of  the  thoughts 
and  intents  of  the  heart ;"  whose  ministry  was  not  only  characterised  by 
fortitude  and  boldness,  but  attested  by  miracles  and  mighty  deeds  ;  whose 
knowledge  of  divine  things  far  surpassed  that  of  all  other  men  ;  and  who 
was  himself  a  living  model  of  all  piety.  This  apphcation  is  maintained,  not 
only  by  the  older  Christian  writers,  and  by  Hengstenberg  and  Henderson, 

tbut  also  by  Umbreit.     It  is   an  old  opinion  that  the  seven  spirits  of  the 
Apocalypse  have  reference  to  the  sevenfold  n-ll  of  this  passage. 

3.  The  Messiah  is  now  described  as  taking  pleasure  in  true  piety  and 
recognizing  its  existence  by  an  infallible  sagacity  or  power  of  discerning 
good  and  evil,  which  would  render  him  superior  to  the  illusions  of  the 
senses  and  to  eveiy  external  influence.  This  faculty  is  figuratively  described 
as  an  exquisite  olfactory  perception,  such  as  enables  its  possessor  to  dis- 
tinguish between  difi'erent  odours.     And  his  sense  of  sinellini/  (i.e.  his  power 

I  of  perception,  with  a  seeming  reference  to  the  pleasm-e  it  aflbrds  him)  shall 
be  exercised  ///  (or  upon)  the  fear  of  Jehovah  (as  an  attribute  of  others), 
and  (being  thus  infallible)  7wt  hi/  the  sirjht  (or  accordin(j  to  the  si(jht)  of  his 
eyes  shall  he  jndije,  and  not  hi/  the  hearinrj  of  his  ears  shall  he  decide.  Tho 
Septuagint  (followed  by  J.  D.  Michaehs,  Doederlein,  Hensler,  Koppe, 
.  Kuiniil,  Cube),  takes  in^n  as  a  preterite  with  a  suffix,  and  explains  the  verb 
as  meaning  to  fill  with  tho  Spirit  or  inspire.     Forerius,  Clericus,  Herder, 

.  -Van  der  Palm,  Hendewerk,  and  Ewald,  make  it  mean  to  breathe.  "  His 
breath  is  in  tho  fear  of  Jehovah."  Nihil  nisi  pietateni  spirahit  (Forerius). 
Pioinhard  makes  it  mean  to  blow,  as  an  expression  of  anger.  But  the  only 
sense  confirmed  by  usage  is  to  smell — his  smell  is  in  the  fear  of  Jehovah. 
Sclmiidius  applies  this  to  the  sweet  smelling  savour  of  our  Lord's  atoning 
sacrifice,  and  J.  H.  Michaelis  to  his  sacerdotal  functions.     Sanctius  and 


Vee.  3.]  ISAIAH  XL  251 

Paulus  understand  it  to  denote  his  odour  as  perceived  by  otliers.     But  it 
rather  denotes  actively  his  smeUing  or  olftictory  perception.     This  is  un-  - 
derstood  by  Jarchi,  Ivimchi,  Eichhorn,  Henderson  and  Umbreit,  as  a  figure 
for  discernment  or  discrimination  between  false  and  true  religion  ;  and  by 
Rosenmiiller,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  De  Wette,  Bai*nes,  and  Knobel,  for 
the  act  of  taking  pleasure  as  the  sense  does  in  a  grateful  odour.     But  these 
two  meanings  are  perfectly  consistent,  and  the  phrase  is  therefore  best  ex- 
plained by  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Lowth,  and  Hengstenberg,  as  comprehend- / 
ing  an  infallible  discernment  and  a  feeling  of  complacency.     He  shall  take 
delight  in  goodness,  and  be  able  to  distinguish  it  without  fail  from  its  coun- 
terfeits.    Gataker  understands  HIIT'  nXTa  as  denoting  that  this  power  of  • 
discernment  should  be  exercised  in  sacred,  not  in  secular  aifairs  ;  Junius, 
Piscator,  and  Vatablus,  that  it  should  be  joined  with,  or  attended  by,  the 
fear  of  God.     But  the  ^  is  really  a  connective,  which  the  verb  n'''in  com-  ■« 
monly  takes  after  it,  and  adds  no  more  to  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  than 
the  English  prepositions  when  we  speak  of  smelUnr)  to  or  of  a  thing  instead 
of  simply  smelling  it.     The  meaning  therefore  must  be  that  the  fear  of  God  J  \ 
or  piety  in  others  would  itself  be  the  object  upon  which  this  faculty  was  to  1 1 
exert  itself.     Grotius,   Clcricus,  Gesenius,  and  Henderson,  understand  by 
the  hearing  of  his  ears  reports  or  rumours,  Hitzig  and  others  complaints  and 
arguments  before  a  judge,  both  which  interpretations  are  too  much  restricted. 
The  sight  of  the  eyes  and  the  hearing  of  the  ears,  are  put  for  the  testimony  • 
of  those  senses  by  which  men  are  chiefly  governed  in  their  judgments.     The 
same  erroneous  view  of  the  passage,  which  led  Hitzig  to  x-estrict  the  hearing  , 
of  the  ear  to  forensic  litigation,  has  led  Barnes  and  Umbreit  to  apply  the 
whole  of  the  last  clause  to  judicial  partiality  or  respect  of  persons.     Hende- 
werk  extends  this  application  only  to  the  sight  of  the  eye,  and  makes  the  - 
hearing  of  the  ear  relate  to  actual  deception  of  the  judge  by  arguments  or 
testimony.     All  this  is  implicitly  included  in  the  text,  but  it  includes  much 
more.     It  is  no  doubt  true,  that  as  a  judge  the  Messiah  would  be  equally 
exempt  from  all  disposition  to  favour  the  rich  and  the  great  at  the  expense 
of  the  poor,  and  fi'om  all  liability  to  imposition  ;  but  it  is   also  true,  and 
here  declared,  that  he  should  not  judge  of  character  at  all  by  the  senses,  .j 
but  by  an  infallible  sagacity  or  power  of  discerning  good  and  evil. — Accord-  j 
ing  to  Cocceius,  the  mention  of  eyes  and  ears  imjjlies  the  real  humanity  of 
the  Messiah.     Aben  Ezra  explains  the  clause  to  mean  that  he  would  rely 
upon  the  sense  of  smelling  rather  than  that  of  sight  or  hearing,  and  Kimchi 
even  says  instead  of  sight  and  hearing.     This  interpretation  is  connected 
with  an  old  Jewish  notion,  that  the  Messiah  may  be  known,  when  he  ap-  • 
pears,  by  his  power  to  distinguish  moral  character   through  the  sense  of  I 
smell.     In  this  way  the  famous  false  Messiah  Bar  Kokba  (son  of  a  star),  is. 
said  to  have  been  proved  an  impostor,  and  his  name  changed  to  Bar  Kozba 
(son  of  a  lie).     The  original  authorities  are  cited  by  Gill  in  his  Commentary 
on  this  place.     Traces  of  this  opinion  have  been  found  by  some  in  the  New 
Testament  (Luke  vii.   39,  John  i.   49),   but  on  very  insufficient  grounds. 
Grotius  applies  the  verse  to  Hezekiah  in  the  following  manner.     His  conso-  - 
lation  (in''7p)  shall   he  in   the  fear  of  the  Lord  (/'.  e.  afforded  by  religion). 
He  shall  not  judge  according  to  the  sight  of  his  eyes  [i.e.  shall  not  despair- 
even  under  the  most  discouraging  appearances).     He  shall  not  reason  (HOV) 
according  to  the  hearing  of  his  ears  («'.  e.  he  shall  draw  no  conclusions  from  • 
the  rumours  that  may  reach  him,  but  beheve  the  declarations  of  the  Pro- 
phets).    Thus  explained,  the  passage  is  certainly  an  accurate  description  . 
of  that  good  king's  conduct  during  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  invasion.     In 


252  ISAIAH  XL  [Ver.  4,  5. 

.  the  En<.'lish  Version  and  by  Lowtb,  0^3 V  i^  explained  as  meaning  to  trprpre  ; 

by  Luther,  Junius,  Clcricus  and  Hengstenberg,  to  punhh  ;  by  the  Septua- 

giut,  Vulgate,   Calvin,  Cocceius,  and  Vitringa,  to  couvince  or  convict  ;  but 
■  by  J.  H.  Micbaelis,  Gosenius,  Ewald,  and  others,  to  dccich' ;  and  as  this 

includes  the  others,  and  makes  the  parallelism  more  exact,  it  is  undoubtedly 

to  be  preferred. 

4.  The  Messiah,  as  a  righteous  judge,  is  now  exhibited  in  contrast  with 
the  unjust  magistrates  of  Judah,  as  described  in  chaps,  i.  23  ;  x.  2  ;  v.  23. 
And  he  shall  judge  in  righteousness  the  luealc  (or  poor)  and  do  justice  with 
equity  (or  impartiality)  to  the  meek  of  the  earth  ;  and  shall  smite  the  earth 
toith  the  rod  of  his  mouth,  and  with  the  breath  of  his  lips  shall  slay  the 
loicked.  By  the  earth  to  be  smitten,  Gesenius  and  others  understand  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth.  But  the  expression  seems  at  least  to  include  the 
smiting  of  the  earth  itself,  which  is  elsewhere  represented  as  the  object  of 
God's  wrath,  and  is  here  described  as  cursed  on  man's  account.     By  a 

•hreath  of  his  lips,  some  understand  a  sentence  of  death,  or  command  to 
kill  (Cocceius,  Clericus,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk) — others  a  natural  expression 
of  anger  (Gesenius,  De  Wette) — others  a  secret,  imperceptible  influence, 
producing  conviction  (Kimchi,  Abarbenel,  Vitringa).  But  the  true  sense 
seems  to  be  the  one  expressed  by  Calvin  and  Ewald — a  mere  word,  or  a 
mere  breath,  as  something  even  less  than  a  word,  and  yet  sufficient  to  eti'ect 
his  purpose.  The  Targum  adds  to  V'^^  the  word  DP''D"1X,  used  by  the  old 
Jews  to  denote  the  last  great  enemy  of  their  religion,  who  is  to  kill  Messi^iah 
the  son  of  Joseph,  but  to  be  killed  by  IMessiah  the  son  of  David.  Paul,  in 
1  Thess.  ii.  8,  applies  these  words,  with  little  change,  to  the  destruction  of 
antichrist  at  the  coming  of  Christ.  It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  this 
is  a  specific  and  exclusive  prophecy  of  that  event,  but  only  that  it  compre- 
hends it,  as  it  evidently  does.  If  one  of  the  Messiah's  works  is  to  destroy 
his  enemies,  it  cannot  be  fulfilled  without  the  destruction  of  the  last  and 
greatest  of  those  enemies  to  whom  the  Scriptm-es  make  allusion.  But  as 
Hengstenberg  observes,  if  the  promise  in  the  first  clause  is  of  general  import, 
the  threatening  in  the  last  must  be  coextensive  with  it. 

5.  And  righteousness  shall  be  the  girdle  of  his  loins,  and  faithfulness  the 
girdle  of  his  reins,  i.  e.  he  shall  be  clothed  or  invested  with  these  attributes, 
and  they  shall  adhere  closely  to  him.  The  metaphor  of  putting  on  or 
clothing  one's  self  with  moral  attributes  is  not  unfrequent  iu  the  Scriptures. 
The  girdle  is  mentioned  as  an  essential  part  of  oriental  dress,  and  that  which 
keeps  the  others  in  their  proper  place,  and  qualifies  the  wearer  for  exertion. 
Calvin  supj^oses  a  particular  reference  to  decoration,  and  Hendewerk  to  the 
military  use  of  the  girdle  as  a  sword-belt.  Lowth  imagines  "lUX  in  one  of 
the  clauses  to  be  an  error  for  TlJn,  because  all  the  ancient  versions  vary 
the  expression  except  that  of  Symmachus,  and  because  the  common  text  is 
an  inelegant   tautology.      But    Gesenius   gives   a   number   of    analogous 

•examples  from  this  very  book,  and  the  recurrence  of  the  word  has  in  fact  a 
good  efiect,  and  none  the  less  because  the  other  words  are  varied.  Accord- 
ing to  Hendewerk,  the  insertion  of  "IIJH  would  do  violence  to  usage,  because 
that  is  a  generic  term  for  all  belts  or  girdles,  including  the  11N^  or  mihtary 
sword-belt,  the  X'p  or  female  sash,  and  the  OJSN  or  sacerdotal  cincture. 
These  distinctions  are  not  noticed  in  the  lexicons.  The  Septuagint  takes  "lITX 
in  both  clauses  as  a  passive  participle  (l-ITN*)  agreeing  with  the  subject  of 
the  verb  {i^ua/Mho;).  The  Chaldee  paraphrase  of  this  verse  makes  it  mean 
that  the  Messiah  would  be  constantly  surrounded  by  just  and  faithful  / 
men.  / 


Ver.  6,  7.]  ISAIAH  XI.  253 

6.  Here,  as  in  chap.  ii.  4,  and  ix.  5,  G,  universal  peace  is  represented  as 
a  consequence  of  the  Messiah's  reign,  but  under  a  new  and  striking  figure. 
— And  the  wolf  shall  (huell  with  the  lamb,  and  the  leopard  shall  lie  doiun 
with  the  hid,  and  the  calf  and  young  lion  and  failing  together,  and  a  little 
child  shall  lead  them.  The  "IP?,  so  called  from  its  spots,  includes  the. 
leopard  and  the  panther,  and  perhaps  the  tiger.  The  I""??  is  a  lion  old, 
enough  to  roar  and  raven.  The  i<''"?P  rendered  ox  by  the  Septuagint  and 
Peshito,  and  explained  to  be  a  particular  kind  of  wild  ox  by  Aben  Ezra  and 
Bochart,  denotes  more  probably  any  fatted  beast,  and  may  here  be  men-- 
tioned  because  beasts  of  prey  select  such  as  their  victims.  The  wolf  is 
introduced  as  the  natural  enemy  of  the  lamb,  and  the  leopard,  as  Bochart 
tries  to  prove  from  Aelian,  sustains  the  same  relation  to  the  kid.  "1-15  does  . 
not  mean  to  dwell  in  general,  but  to  sojourn  as  a  stranger  or  a  guest,  and 
implies  that  the  lamb  should,  as  it  were,  receive  the  wolf  into  its  home. 
The  verb  ^?p  is  specially  appropriated  to  express  the  lying  down  of  sheep 
and  other  animals.  Here  it  may  denote  that  the  leopard,  accustomed  to 
crouch  while  waiting  for  its  prey,  shall  now  lie  down  peaceably  beside  it; 
or  there  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  restlessness  and  fleetness  of  the  wild 
beast,  now  to  be  succeeded  by  the  quiet  habits  of  the  ruminating  species. 
The  unusual  construction  Q3  Jnb  has  led  some  to  take  2  in  the  sense  of. 
among,  and  others  to  regard  J [13  as  a  noun,  meaning  leader  or  conductor. 
But  the  truth  is  that  the  insertion  of  3  between  words  which  seem  to  cohere  , 
most  closely,  is  a  common  idiom  of  Hebrew  syntax.  {Vide  supra,  chap.  ix. 
Ij  2).  Jn3  is  properly  to  lead,  but  may  include  the  idea  of  driving,  as  a 
shepherd  does  his  flock.  Some  supply  the  substantive  verb  with  nn,'' — 
shall  be  together — but  a  similar  construction  is  to  connect  it  with  the  verb 
in  the  preceding  clause — the  leopard  and  the  kid  shall  lie  down  together, 
the  calf,  the  young  lion,  and  the  fatted  beast  together.  Jerome  speaks  of 
the  Jews  and  some  judaizing  Christians  as  believing  that  the  literal  change 
in  the  nature  of  wild  beasts  is  here  predicted.  Kimchi  regards  it  as  a  pro- 
mise of  immunity  from  wild  beasts,  to  be  enjoyed  by  the  Jews  alone  in  the 
days  of  the  Messiah.  Most  Christian  writers,  ancient  and  modern,  with 
Aben  Ezra  and  Maimonides  among  the  Jews,  explain  the  prophecy  as  wholly 
metaphorical,  and  descriptive  of  the  peace  to  be  enjoyed  by  God's  people — 
according  to  Grotius,  after  Sennacheril)'s  retreat — but  according  to  the  rest, 
under  the  new  dispensation.  Cocceius  and  Clericus  apply  the  passage  to 
the  external  peace  between  the  church  and  the  world,  but  it  is  commonly 
regarded  as  descriptive  of  the  change  wrought  by  Christianity  in  wicked  men 
themselves.  Vitringa  gives  a  specific  meaning  to  each  figure  in  the  land- 
scape, making  the  lamb,  the  calf,  and  the  fatted  beast,  denote  successive 
stages  in  the  Christian's  progress,  the  lion  open  enemies,  the  leopard  more 
disguised  ones,  the  wolf  treacherous  and  malignant  ones,  the  little  child  the 
ministry.  This  kind  of  exposition  not  only  mars  the  beauty,  but  obscures 
the  real  meaning  of  the  prophecy.  Calvin  and  Hengstenberg  suppose  the 
passage  to  include  a  promise  of  a  future  change  in  the  material  creation, 
restoring  it  to  its  original  condition  (Rom.  viii.  19-22),  while  they  agree 
with  other  writers  in  regarding  the  pacific  efiects  of  true  religion  as  the 
primary  subject  of  the  prophecy. 

7.  And  the  cow  and  the  hear  shall  feed — together  shall  their  young  lie 
down — and  the  lion  like  the  ox  shall  eat  strmv.     According  to  Vitringa, . 
there  is  here  a  climax,  not  in  form  but  in  sense;  not  only  shall  the  nobler 
lion  be  at  peace  with  the  domesticated  animals,  but  even  the  less  generous 
and  more  ferocious  bear.     The  Septuagint  and  Peshito  repeat  II^H!,  in  which . 


254  ISAIAH  XL  [Ver.  8,  9. 

they  are  followed  by  most  interpreters,  and  Lowtli  inserts  it  in  the  text. 

■  But  accorchng  to  Hitzig,  the  wonder  is  not  that  the  bear  grazes  with  the 
cow,  but  that  it  grazes  at  all,  the  cow  being  mentioned  only  to  shew  what 
kind  of  pasture  is  intended.  The  sense  will  then  be  simply  that  the  bear 
gi-azes  li/ce  the  cow,  the  very  form  of  expression  used  in  the  last  clause  with 
respect  to  the  lion.  He  mentions  straw  as  a  common  kind  of  fodder — 
honh'i  stipulam  hubus  rfratissimam — palea  pliires  gentium  pro  frtiio  utuittur. 
(PHny,  Nat.  Hist,  xviii.  30).  The  lion's  eating  straw  implies  not  only 
cohabitation  with  domestic  cattle,  but  a  change  of  his  carnivorous  habits. 
Yitringa  cames  out  his  allegorical  hypothesis  by  making  the  cow  the  repre- 
sentative of  Christians  who  have  reached  the  point  of  giving  as  well  as 
receiving  instruction,  of  yielding  milk  as  well  as  drinking  it.  He  apologizes 
for  the  use  of  straw  as  an  emblem  of  divine  truth  or  the  gospel,  on  the 
ground  that  its  doctrines  are  so  simple  and  uninviting  to  fastidious  appetites. 
The  arbitrary  character  of  such  interpretations  is  betrayed  by  Gill's  remark 
that  straw  here  means  true  doctrine,  elsewhere  false  (1  Cor.  iii.  12).  The 
truth  is  that  neither  the  straw  nor  the  lion  means  anything  by  itself;  but 
the  lion's  eating  straw  denotes  a  total  change  of  habit,  and  indeed  of  nature, 
and  is  therefore  a  fit  emblem  for  the  revolution  which  the  gospel,  in  pro- 
portion to  its  influence,  eflects  in  the  condition  of  society,  with  some  allusion 
possibly,  as  before  suggested,  to  the  ultimate  deliverance  of  the  -/.riaig  or 
irrational  creation  from  that  bondage  of  corruption,  to  which,  for  man's  sake, 
it  is  now  subjected. 

8.  To  express  the  idea  still  more  strongly,  venomous  serpents  are  repre- 
sented as  innoxious,  not  to  other  beasts,  but  to  the  human  species,  and  to 
the  most  helpless  and  unthinking  of  that  species.  And  the  suchinrf  child 
shall  jylay  on  (or  over)  the  hole  of  the  asp,  and  on  the  din  of  the  basilisk  (or 

.  cerastes)  shall  (he  iveancd  child  stretch  (or  place)  its  hand. — "IH  is  omitted  by 
the  Septuagint,  and  explained  by  Ewald  as  denoting  the  feelers  of  a  horned 
snake,  and  the  same  sense  is  ascribed  to  H^-INp  by  J.  D.  Michaelis.  But 
both  words  really  denote  a  hole  or  cavity,  rri'lNp  properly  a  light-hole  or 
aperture  admitting  light,     Gcscnius  in  his  Commentary  follows  Bochart  in 

.deriving  it  by  pei mutation  from  niiyO;  but  in  his  Thesaurus,  he  admits 
the  derivation  from  "ii>5.     Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi  make  it  mean  the  eye  of 

.  the  serpent  itself,  and  Hitzig  the  shield  between  the  eyes  of  the  basilisk. 
The  precise  discrimination  of  the  species  of  serpents  here  referred  to,  is  of 
no  importance  to  the  exegesis.  All  that  is  necessary  to  a  correct  understand- 
ing of  the  verse  is  that  both  words  denote  extremely  venomous  and  deadly 
reptiles.  The  weaned  child  means  of  course  a  child  just  weaned,  which 
idea  is  expressed  in  translation  by  Yitringa  (nuper  depulsus  a  lacte),  Lowth 
(the  new- weaned  child),  and  Gesenius  (der  kaum  Entwohnte).  The  parallel 
terms  are  rendered  by  Henderson  the  sucklin;/  and  the  weanlinff.     Accord- 

'  ing  to  Jerome,  this  verse  predicts  the  casting  out  of  devils  by  our  Lord's 
disciples ;  according  to  Yitringa,  the  conversion  or  destruction  of  heretical 
teachers  ;  while  Cocceius  makes  it  a  specific  prophecy  of  Luther,  Calvin, 
and  Huss,  as  the  children  who  were  to  thrust  their  hands  into  the  den  of 
the  antichristian  serpents.  It  is  really  a  mere  continuation  of  the  metaphor 
begun  in  ver.  7,  and  expresses,  by  an  additional  figure,  the  change  to  be 
effected  in  society  by  the  prevalence  of  true  religion,  destroying  noxious 
influences  and  rendering  it  possible  to  live  in  safety. 

9.  The  strong  figures  of  the  foregoing  context  are  now  resolved  into 
literal  expressions.  Thiy  (indefinitely,  men  in  general)  sh(dl  not  hurt  vor 
destroy  in  all  my  holy  mountain,  because  the  land  is  full  of  the  hxouledge  of 


Ver.  10.]  ISAIAH  XL  255 

Jehovah  (literally,  of  kno^Ying  him)  like  the  waters  covering  the  sea. — Aben 
Ezra  seems  to  think  that  the  verbs  in  the  first  clause  must  agi'ee  with  , 
the  nouns   in  the   preceding  verse — they    (the    animals    just  mentioned) 
shall   not    hurt,    &c.     But    the    absence    of   the    copulative    shews    that . 
this  is  not  so  much  a  dii-ect   continuation  of  the   previous   description 
as  a  summary    explanation  of  it.     The  true  construction,  therefore,  is  in-  - 
definite.     Rosenniiiller  distinguishes  the  two  verbs  as  meaning  to  injure - 
others  and   to   injure    themselves ;    but  they  are  evidently  used  as  mere 
equivalent  expressions.     My  holy  mountain  does  not  mean  the  whole  land- 
of  Israel,  so  called  as  being  higher  than  all  other  countries  (liimchi) — 
nor  the  mountainous  part  of  it  (Jahn),  to  which  there  could  be  no  reason  . 
for  specially  alluding,  and  of  which  the  singular  form  "in  is  not  descrip- 
tive— but  Zion,  or  Moriah,  or  the  city  built  upon  them,  not  considered, 
simply  as  a  capital  city,  in  which  a  reformation  was  particularly  needed 
(Hitzig),  but  as  the  seat  of  the  true  rehgion,  and  at  that  time  the  local  • 
habitation  of  the  church.      What  was  true  of  the  church  there,  is  true 
of  the  church  everywhere.     The  fii-st  clause  clearly  shews  that  the  fore- 
going description  is  to  be  figuratively  understood.       That  the  wolf  and 
the  lamb  should   lie    down    together,  means  in  other  words,  that   none 
should  hurt  or  destroy  in  the  Messiah's  kingdom.     The  reason  is  given 
in  the  last  clause.     |'!Ii?;?  may  mean  the  land  of  Israel  as  the  abode  of  the. 
true  religion,  and  the  whole  earth  so  far  as  the  chm'ch  was  to  become  co- 
extensive with  it.     For  the  syntax  of  the  verbal  noun  with  the  accusa-* 
tive,  see  Gesenius  §  130,   1.     Tlie  sea,  according  to  Kimchi  and  Gese-  ■ 
nius,  means  the  bottom  or  the  basin  of  the  sea.       The  construction  of 
this  clause  by  Luther  and  Augusti  (as  if  covered  with  the  waters  of  the 
sea)  is  veiy  inexact.     The  "?  is  used  instead  of  the  more  usual  ?V..     The  • 
strict  sense  of  the  words  is,  covering  with  respect  to  the  sea.     The  point  of 
comparison  is  not  the  mere  extent  of  surface  (Vatablus),  nor  the  depth  . 
(Vitringa),  but  the  fulness  of  the  land  to  the  extent  of  its  capacity.     This 
passage  is  descriptive  of  the  reign  of  the  Messiah,  not  at  any  one  period,, 
but  as  a  whole.    A  historian,  as  Vitringa  well  observes,  in  giving  a  general 
description  of  the  reign  of  David,  would  not  use  language  appUcable  only 
to  its  beginning.     The  prophecy  is  therefoi-e  one  of  gradual  fulfilment.     So  - 
far  as  the  cause  operates,   the  efi'ect  follows,  and  when  the  cause  shall 
operate  without  restraint,  the  effect  will  be  complete  and  universal.     The  - 
use  of  the  future  in  the   first  clause   and  the  preterite  in  the  second  may  . 
imply,  that  the  prevalence  of  the  knowledge  of  Jehovah  must  precede  that  - 
of  universal  peace.     It  is  not  till  the  land  has  been  filled  with  that  know-  • 
ledge,  that  men  tvill  cease  to  injure  and  destroy. — It  will  be  sufficient  to 
record  without  comment,  that  according  to  Cocceius  the  holy  mountain  • 
is  the  reformed  church,  as  the  basilisk's  den  was  the   Church  of  Rome, 
and  that  the  reconciliation  here  predicted  is  a  mere  external  one  between 
the  people  of  God  and  their  oppressors. 

10.  Having  described  the  Messiah's  reign  and  its  effects,  he  now  brings 
his  person  into  view  again.  And  in  that  dag  shall  the  root  of  Jesse  lohich 
(is)  standing  (or  set  up)  le  for  a  signal  to  the  nations^unto  him  shall  the 
Gentiles  seek,  and  his  rest  (or  residence)  s/m^?  he  glorious. — Almost  all  inter- 
preters take  ^\y}  in  the  indefinite  sense,  it  shall  he  or  come  to  pass,  as  a 
mere  idiomatic  introduction  to  what  follows,  leaving  ^'X'  to  be  construed . 
as  a  nominative  absolute.  But  Ewald  makes  ^'^  itself  the  subject  of 
^^'^,  which  is  a  simpler  construction. — The  root  of  Jesse  is  explained  by, 
Kimchi  and  most  other  writers  to  be  put  by  metonymy  for  that  which  grows 


256  ISAIAH  XL  [Yer,  11. 

out  of  his  roots  and  therefore  equivalent  to  1t?n  and  *1V?.  in  ver.  1,     So  the 
oi^a  Aa/3/6  of  Rev.  v.  5  and  xxii.   10  is  expluiucd  by  Stuart  as  meaning 
"not  mot  of  David,  but  a  root-shout  from  the  trunk  or  stem  of  David." 
But  Vitringa  supposes  the  Messiah  to  be  called  the  root  of  Jesse,  because 
by  him  the  family  of  Jesse  is  sustained  and  perpetuated ;  Cocccius,  because 
he  was  not  only  his  descendant  but  his  Maker  and  his  Saviour.     Hitzig 
understands  by  the  root  that  in  which  the  rppt  is  reproduced  and  reap- 
pears.    But  Umbreit  takes  the  word  in  its  proper  sense,  and  understands 
the  prophecy  to  mean  that  the  family  of  Jesse  now  under  ground  should 
reappear  and  rise  to  the  height  of  a  DJ,  not  a  military  standard,  but  a 
signal,  especially  one  raised  to  mark  a  j^Tilce  or  rendezvous,  for  which  pur- 
pose lofty  trees  are  said  to  have  been  sometimes  used.     A  signal  of  the 
■nations  then  is  one  displayed  to  gather  them.     IPV  describes  it  as  continu- 
.  ing  or  permanently  fixed.     The  reference  is  not  to  Christ's  crucifixion,  but 
to  his  manifestation  to  the  Gentiles  through  the  preaching  of  the  gospel. 
p'^pV  is  here  used  as  a  synonyme  of  D^^J,  meaning  not  the  tribes  of  Israel 
-  but  other  nations.     To  seek  to  is   not   merely  to  inquire  about,  through 
(curiosity — or  to  seek  one's    favour  in    the  general — or  to    pay   religious 
4  honours — but  more  specifically  to  consult  as  an  oracle  or  depositary  of  reli- 
_^gious  truth.     By  his  rest  we  are  not  to  rmderstand  his  grave,  or  his  death, 
or  his  Sabbath,  or  the  rest  he  gives  his  people,  but  his  place  of  rest,  his 
resi4.ence.     There  is  no  need  of  supplying  a  preposition  before  glory,  which 
is  an  abstract  used  for  a  concrete — glory  for  glorious.     The  church,  Christ's 

*  home,  shall  be  glorious  from  his  presence  and  the  accession  of  the  Gentiles. 
Forerius  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  needlessly  read  "inn^p  his  olfering. 

11.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass)  in  that  day — not  the  days  of 

.  Hezekiah  (Grotius),  not  the  days  of  Cyrus  and  Darius  (Sanctius),  nor  the 

days  of  the  Maccabees  (Jahn),  but  the  days  of  the  Messiah — the  Lord  shall 

add  his  hand  (or  add  to  apply  his  hand)  a  second  time — not  second  in 

•  reference  to  the  overthrow  of  Pekah  and  Rezin  (Sanctius),  or  the  return 
from  Babylon  (Forerius),  or  the  first  preaching  of  the  .cjospel  to  the  Jews 
(Cocceius),  but  to  the  deliverance  from  Eg}'pt.  ri''Jt?'  is  not  pleonastic 
(Gesenius),  but  emphatic.  His  hand — not  his  arm  (Hitzig) — as  a  svTubol 
of  strength  (Targum) — not  in  apposition  with  the  Lord,  the  Lord  even 
his  hand  (Hitzig,  Hendewcrk),  nor  governed  by  show  understood  (rov 
dsT^ai),  nor  qualifying  niJp?  (Grotius),  but  either  governed  by  n^i^'?  under- 
stood (Luther  ansstrccken)  or  directly  by  ^^PV  (Yul.  adjiciet  manum). 
ri"'3p  is  not  the  infinitive  of  NJj^  (LXX.  ^jjXwcra/,  Clcricus),  but  of  njj?.  It 
does  not  mean  merely  to  possess  (Yulgate),  but  to  acquire  (TiUther),  espe- 
cially by  piurchase,  and  so  to  redeem  from  bondage  and  oppression  (Yitringa), 
as  "130  is  to  subject  them  to  it  (Gesenius),  although  the  true  opposite  of  the 
latter  verb  seems  to  be  HIQ  (Hendewerk).  Jlie  remnant  of  his  2')eople — 
not  the  survivors  of  the  original  captives  (Aben  Ezra,  Hendewerk) — but 
those  living  at  the  time  of  the  deliverance,  or  still  more  restrictedly,  the 
remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace  (Calvin). — From  Assyria,  &c., 
to  be  construed,  not  with  ri13p7  (Abarbenel),  but  with  'Wi'\,  as  appears 

■  from  ver.  IG.  The  countries  mentioned  are  put  for  all  in  which  the  Jews 
should  be  scattered. — There  is  no  importance  to  be  attached  to  the  order 
in  which  they  arc  enumerated  (Cocccius),  nor  is  the  precise  extent  of  each 
material.  Assyria  and  Egypt  are  named  first  and  together,  as  the  two  great 
foreign  powers,  with  which  the  Jews  were  best  acquainted.  Pathros  is  not 
Parthia  (Calvin),  nor  Arabia  Petra^a  (Forerius),  nor  Pharusis  in  Ethiopia 
(Grotius),  nor  Patures  in  the  Delta  of  the  Nile  (Brocard,  Adrichomius), 


Vek.  12.]  ISAIAH  XL  257 

but  Thebais  or  Upper  Egypt,  as  appears  not  only  from  a  comparison  of  - 
Scriptures  (Bochart),  but  also  from  the  Egyptian  etymology  of  the  name 
(Jablonsky),  as  denoting  the  region  of  the  south  (Gesenius).     It  is  distin- 
guished from  Egypt  by  the  classical  writers  also. — D.''^VP  is  a  dual  form, 
properly  denoting  either  upper  and  lower  or  middle  and  lower  Egypt. — 
Cush  is  not  merely  Ethiopia  proper  (Gesenius),  or  the  land  of  Midian, 
(Bochart),  or  Babylonia  (Septuagint),  or  India  (Targum),  but  Ethiopia, 
perhaps   including  part   of  Arabia,   from  which  it  appears  to  have  been 
settled  (Calvin,  J.  D.  Michaehs). — Shinar  is  properly  the  plain  in  which  • 
Babylon  was  built,  thence  put  for  Babylonia.     Elam  is  not  the  rising  of 
the  sun  (Septuagint),  but  Elymais,  a  province  of  Persia,  contiguous  to 
Media,   sometimes   put  for  the   whole   country.     Hamath  is   not  Arabia ' 
(Septuagint),  but  a  city  of  Syria  on  the  Orontes  {vide  supra,  chap.  x.  9). 
Islands  of  the  sea,  not  regions  (Henderson),  which  is  too  vague,  nor  coasts* 
in  general  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  nor  islands  in  the  strict  sense  (Clericus),  but 
the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  whether  insular  or  continental,   and  sub- 
stantially equivalent  to  Europe  (Cocceius),  meaning  the  part  of  it  then 
known,  and  here  put  last,  according  to  Cocceius,  as  being  the  most  im- 
portant.— This  prophecy  does  not  relate  to  the  Gentiles  or  the  Christian  ■ 
Church  (Cocceius),  but  to  the  Jews  (Jerome).     The  dispersions  spoken  of  ""^ 
are  not  merely  such  as  had  already  taken  place  at  the  date  of  the  prediction 
(Gesenius),  but  others  then  still  future  (Hengstenberg),  including  not  only 
the  Babylonish  exile,  but  the  present  dispersion.     The  prophecy  was  not 
fulfilled  in  the  return  of  the  refugees  after  Sennacherib's  discomfiture  (Gro-  ' 
tins),  nor  in  the  return  from  Babylon  (Sanctius),  and  but  partially  in  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel  to  the   Jews.     The  complete  fulfilment  is  to  be  «— 
expected  when  all  Israel  shall  be  saved.     The  prediction  must  be  figura- 
tively understood,  because  the  nations  mentioned  in  this  verse  have  long 
ceased  to  exist.     The  event  prefigured  is,  according  to  Keith  and  others, 
the  return  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine  ;  but  according  to  Calvin,  Vitringa,  and 
Hengstenberg,  their  admission  to   Christ's   kingdom   on    repentance   and 
reception  of  the  Christain  faith. 

12.  And  he  (Jehovah)  shall  set  up  a  signal  to  the  nations,  and  shall  gather 
the  outcasts  of  Israel,  and.  the  dispersed  of  Judah  shall  he  bring  together  from 
the  four  wings  of  the  earth, — DJ  is  not  necessarily  a  banner  (Luther),  but  a 
sign  or  signal  (LXX.  cniMTov,  Vulg.  signum),  displayed  for  the  purpose  of 
assembling  troops  or  others  at  some  one  point. — To  the  nations,  not  among 
them  (Luther),  nor  for  them  (English  Version),  which  though  essentially 
correct,  is  not  so  simple  and  exact  as  to  the  nations,  i.  e.  in  their  sight.  The 
nations  thus  addressed  are  not  the  Jews  but  the  Gentiles,  and,  as  most  in-  ' 
terpreters  suppose,  those  Gentiles  among  whom  the  Jews  were  scattered, 
and  who  are  summoned  by  the  signal  here  displayed  to  set  the  captives 
free,  or  to  assist  them  in  returning,  or,  according  to  the  rabbins,  actually  to 
bring  them  as  an  offering  to  Jehovah,  a  figm-e  elsewhere  used  in  the  same 
book  (chap.  Ixvi.  19,  20).  Hitzig,  indeed,  with  double  assurance  pronounces 
that  passage  to  be  not  only  written  by  another  hand,  but  founded  upon  a 
misapprehension  of  the  one  before  us.  But  the  very  same  idea  is  expressed 
in  chap.  xiv.  2,  xlix.  22.  There  is,  however,  another  view  of  the  passage,  , 
which  supposes  the  nations  or  Gentiles  to  be  here  mentioned  as  distinct 
from  the  Jews,  and  unconnected  with  them.  The  verse  then  contains  two 
successive  predictions,  first,  that  the  Gentiles  shall  be  called,  and  then  that« 
the  Jews  shall  be  restored,  which  agrees  exactly  with  Paul's  account  of  the 

VOL.  I.  B 


258  ISAIAH  XI  [Yer.  13. 

connection  between  tliese  events.  Blitidneas  in  jjct^'t  is  hajjpened  to  Israel 
until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  cone  in  (Rom.  xi.  25,  26).  On  this 
hypothesis,  the  signal  is  displayed  to  the  Gentiles,  not  that  they  may  send 
or  bring  the  Jews  back,  but  that  they  may  come  themselves,  and  then  the 
gathering  of  Israel  and  Judah  is  added,  as  a  distinct,  if  not  a  subsequent 
event.  This  last  interpretation  is  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  a  New  Testa- 
ment prophecy,  the  first  by  an  analogous  prophecy  of  Isaiah  himself. — 

,  Israel  and  Judah  are  put  together  to  denote  the  race  in  general.  Outcasts 
and  dispersed  are  of  different  genders.  The  latter,  which  is  feminine  in 
form,  is  supposed  by  the  older  writers  to  agree  with  some  word  understood 
— such  as  souls  (Pagninus),  members  (Junius),  sheep  (Piscator),  families 
(Clericus),  women  (Gataker)— implying  that  no  sex  or  rank  would  be  passed 
by.     According  to  Gesenius,  the  construction  is  an  idiomatic  one,  both 

.  predicates  belonging  to  both  subjects,  the  exiled  men  of  Israel,  and  the 
scattered  women  of  Judah,  meaning  the  exiled  men  and  scattered  women 
both  of  Israel  and  Judah.  (For  other  'examples  of  this  merismus  or 
pcirallaffe  elliptica,  see  chap,  xviii.  6  ;  Zech.  ix.  17  ;  Prov.  x.  1).     At  the 

,  same  time  he  regards  it  as  an  example  of  another  idiom  which  combines 
the  genders  to  express  totality  {ride  supra,  chap.  iii.  1).  But  these  two 
explanations  are  hardly  compatible,  and   Henderson,  witii   more  consist- 

.  ency,  alleges  that  there  is  no  distinct  allusion  to  the  sex  of  the  wanderers, 
and  that  the  feminine  foi-m  is  added  simply  to  express  universality. 
Ewald,  on  the  contrary,  makes  the  distinction  of  the  sexes  prominent 
by  adding  to    the  participles  man    and  wife.      ^33  is  properly  the  wing 

•  of  a  bird,  then  the  skirt  or  edge  of  a  garment,  then  the  extremity  of  the 
earth,  in  which  sense  it  is  used  both  in  the  singular  and  plural.  The 
same  idea  is  expressed  by  the /our  toinds,  with  which,  in  the  New  Testament, 
are  mentioned  the  four  corners,  and  this  last  expression  is  used  even  here 
by  Clericus  and  in  the  old  French  Aversion.     The  reference  of  course  is  to 

•  the  cardinal  points  of  the  compass,  as  determined  by  the  rising  and  setting 
of  the  sun. — If  this  verso  be  understood  as  predicting  the  agency  of  the 
Gentiles  in  restoring  the  Jews,  it  may  be  said  to  have  been  partially  fulfilled 
in  the  return  from  Babylon  under  the  auspices  of  Cyrus,  and  again  in  all 
eflbrts  made  by  Gentile  Christians  to  convert  the  Jews  ;  but  its  full  accom- 
plishment is  still  prospective,  and  God  may  even  now  be  lifting  up  a  signal 
to  the  Gentiles  for  this  very  purpose. — Hendewerk's  notion  that  this  pro- 

■  phecy  was  fulfilled  when  many  brought  gifts  unto  the  Lord  to  Jerusalem, 
and  presents  to  Hezehiah,  king  of  Judah,  so  that  he  teas  lifted  up  (^^K;'3*1) 

^  in  the  sight  of  all  nations  from  thenceforth  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  2.3),  neither  re- 
quires nor  admits  of  refutation.  The  same  may  perhaps  be  said  of  Cocceius's 
opinion,  that  this  verse  relates  wholly  or  chiefly  to  the  healing  of  divisions 
in  the  Christian  Church. 

13.  And  the  envy  of  Ephraim  shall  depart  (or  cease),  and  the  enemies 
of  Judah  shall  be  cut  off.  Ephraim  shall  not  envy  Judah,  and  Judah  shall 
not  vex  (oppress  or  harass)  Ephraim.     Jacob,  in  his  prophetic  statement 

•  of  the  fortunes  of  his  sons,  disregards  the  rights  of  primogeniture,  and 
gives  the  pre-eminence  to  Judah  and  Joseph  (Gen.  xlix.  8-12,  22-26), 
and  in  the  family  of  the  latter  to  the  younger  son  Ephraim  (Gen.  xhuii.  19). 
Hence  from  the  time  of  the  exodus,  these  two  were  regarded  as  the  leading 
•tribes  of  Israel.  Judah  was  much  more  numerous  than  Ephraim  (Num. 
i.  27-33) — took  precedence  during  the  journey  in  the  wilderness  (Num. 
ii.  3,  X.  14) — and  received  the  largest  portion  in  the  promised  land.     But 

•  Joshua  was  an  Ephraimite  (Num.  xiii.  8),  and  Shiloh,  where  the  taber- 


Ver.  13.]  ISAIAH  XI  259 

nacle  long  stood  (Joshua  xviii.  1  ;  1  Sam.  iv.  3),  was  probably  within  the 
limits  of  the  same  tribe.     The  ambitious  jealousy  of  the  Ephraimites  to- ' 
wards  Other  tribes  appears  in  their  conduct  to  Gideon  and  Jephthah  (Judges  , 
viii.  1,  xii.  1).     Their  special  jealousy  of  Judah  showed  itself  in  their  > 
temporary  refusal  to   submit  to   David   after  the  death  of  Saul — in  their 
adherence  to  Absalom  against  his  father — and  in  the  readiness  with  which 
they  joined  in   the  revolt  of  Jeroboam,   who  was  himself  of  the  tribe  of 
Ephraim  (1  Kings  xi.  26).     This  schism  was,  therefore,  not  a  sudden  or 
fortuitous  occurrence,  but  the  natural  result  of  causes  which  had  long  been 
working.     The  mutual  relation  of  the  two  kingdoms  is  expressed  in  the  ' 
recorded  fact,  that  there  was  war  hetioeen  Reliohoam  and  Jeroboam,  and 
hetween  Asa  and  Baaslia,  all  their  days  (1  Kings  xiv.  30,  xv.  16).     Ex- 
ceptions to  the  general  rule,  as  in  the  case  of  Ahab  and  Jehoshaphat,  were  t 
rare,  and  a  departure  from  the  principles  and  ordinary  feelings  of  the 
parties.     The  ten  tribes,  which  assumed  the  name  of  Israel  after  the  divi-"» 
sion,  and  perhaps  before  it,  regarded  the  smaller  and  less  warlike  State 
with  a  contempt  which  is  well  expressed  by  Jehoash  in  his  parable  of  the 
cedar  and;  the  thistle  (2  Ivings  xiv.  9),  unless  the  feeling  there  displayed  be 
rather  personal  than  national.     On  the  other  hand,  Judah  justly  regarded  i 
Israel  as  guilty,  not  only  of  political  revolt,  but  of  religious  apostasy  (Ps. 
Ixxviii.  9—11),  and  the  jealousy  of  Ephraim  towards  Judah  would  of  course 
be  increased  by  the  fact  that  Jehovah  had  forsaken  the  tabernacle  of  Shiloh 
(Ps.  Ixxviii.  60),  that  he  refused  the  tahernacle  of  Joseph,  and'  chose  not  the 
tribe  of  Ephraim,  hut  chose  the  tribe  of  Judah,  the  mount  Zion  xohich  he  ' 
loved  (ib.  vers.  67,   68).     To  these  historical  facts   Gesenius   refers,   as 
shewing  the  incorrectness  of  De  Wette's  assertion,  that  the  hatred  and 
jealousy  existed  only  on  the  part  of  Judah — a  paradox  which  may  indeed 
be  looked  upon  as  neutralized  by  the  counter-paradox  of  Hitzig  that  they 
existed  only  on  the  part  of  Ephraim !     They  were  no  doubt  indulged  on  , 
both  sides,  but  with  this  diiference,  that  Ephraim  or  Israel  was  in  the 
wrong  from  the  beginning,  and  as  might  have  been  expected,  more  malig-  . 
nant  in  its  enmity.     This  view  of  the  matter  will  serve  to  explain  why  it 
is  that  when  the  Prophet  would  foretell  a  state  of  harmony  and  peace,  he* 
does  so  by  declaring  that  the  hereditary  and  proverbial  enmity  of  Judah 
and  Israel  should  cease.     It  also  explains  why  he  lays  so  much  more  stress 
upon  the  envy  of  Ephraim  than  upon  the  enmity  of  Judah,  viz.  because  the   \ 
latter  was  only  an  indulgence  of  unhallowed  feeling,  to  which,  in  the  othei*--! 
case,  were  superadded  open  rebellion  and  apostasy  fi'om  God.     Hence  the   ; 
first  three  members  of  the  verse  before  us  speak  of  Ephraim's  enmity  to -| 
Judah,  and  only  the  fourth  of  Judah's  enmity  to  Ephraim ;  as  if  it  had 
occurred  to  the  Prophet,  that  although  it  was  Ephraim  whose  disposition 
needed  chiefly  to  be  changed,  yet  Judah  also  had  a  change  to  imdergo, 
which  is  therefore  intimated  in  the  last  clause,  as  a  kind  of  after- thought. 
The  envy  of  Ephraim  against  Judah  shall  depart — the  enemies  of  Judah 
(in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes)  shall  be  cut  off — Ephraim  shall  no  more 
envy  Judah — yes,   and  Judah  in  its  turn  shall  cease  to  vex  Ephraim.   I 
There  is  indeed  another  construction  of  the  verse,  ancient  and  sanctioned*  J 
by  very  high  authority,  which  makes  the  Prophet  represent  the  parties  as  J 
precisely  alike,  and  predict  exactly  the  same  change  in  both.     This  con- 
struction supposes  rri-in^  n"i'V  to  mean,  not  the  enemies  of  Judah  (whether 
foreign,  as  Cocceius  thinks,  or  in  the  sister  kingdom),  but  the  enemies  {of 
Ephraim)  in  Judah,  or  those  of  Judah  who  are  enemies  to  Ephraim.     This 
construction,  which  is  copied  by  Bosenmiiller  and  Gesenius  from  Albert 


260  ISAIAir  XL  [Ver.  13. 

Sclaultens.  is  really  fis  old  as  Kimclii,  who  remarks  upon  the  clause, 
for  of  old  there  were   in  Judah  enemies  to  Ephraim.     Against  it  may  be 

.  urged,  not  only  the  general  principle  of  Hebrew  syntax,  that  a  noun  in 
rc"imcn  with  an  active  participle  denotes  the  object  of  the  action,  but  the 
specific  usage  of  this  very  word.  Haman  is  called  Dnin^n  "inv,  the  enemy 
(or  oppressor)  of  the  Jews  (Esther  iii.  10),  and  Amos  (v.  12)  speaks  of 
those  who  treat  the  righteous  as  an  enemy  (P'''!'V  ''T}^).  In  all  the  cases 
where  a  different  construction  of  the  participle  with  a  noun  has  been  al- 
leged, either  the  usual  one  is  precluded  by  the  connection  or  the  nature  of 
the  subject,  or  the  syntax  is  more  doubtful  than  in  the  case  before  us  (e.  g. 
Exod.  V.  14;  1  Sam.  xix.  29;  1  Kings  ii.  7,  v.  32).  Ivnobel's  assertion 
that  the  participle  is  used  as  a  noun,  and  does  therefore  signif}'  the  ob- 
ject of  the  action,  is  contradicted  by  the  usage  of  l?)^',  already  stated. 
A  still  more  arbitrary  method  of  attaining  the  same  end  is  that  proposed 

'by  Seeker  and  approved  by  Lowtli,  who  read  ^^l^V  as  an  abstract  mean- 
ing enmity,  or  the  modification  suggested  by  Gesenius,  of  taking  the 
active  participle  itself  as  an  abstract  noun.  These  constructions  are  so 
violent,  and  the  contrary  usage  so  plain,  that  the  question  naturally 
arises,  why  should  the  latter  be  departed  from  at  all  ?     The  answer  is, 

'  because  the  favourite  notion  of   exact  parallelism  requires  it.      All  the 

•  writers  who  maintain  this  opinion  assume  that  the  second  clause  must 
express  the   same  idea  with  the   first,  and   in   the  same  order.     Luther 

•  indeed  was  satisfied  with  an  inverted  order,  and  by  giving  to  the  first 
phrase  the  sense  of  envy  against  Ephraim  (which  is  not  more  unautho- 
rized than  to  make  the  other  mean  enemies  in  Judah),  has  contrived  to 
make  the  first  clause  correspond  to  the  fourth,  and  the  second  to  the  third 
(und  der  Neid  uider  Ephraim  wird  aufhiiron,  u.  s.  w.).  But  the  modern 
writers  must  have  a  parallehsm  still  more  exact,  .and  to  this  rhetorical 
chimera  both  the  syntax  and  the  true  sense  of  the  passage  must  be  sacrificed. 
In  this  case  we  ai*e  able  to  produce  an  instance  from  another  prophet,  an 
older  contemporary  of  Isaiah,  in  which  the  structure  of  the  sentence  coincides 
precisely  with  the  one  before  us,  that  is  to  say,  there  are  several  successive 
clauses  relating  to  one  of  the  parties  mentioned,  and  then  a  final  one  relating 
to  the  other.     This  example  is  found  in  Hosea  iii.  3,  Ami  I  said  to  her,  thou 

,  shah  abide  for  me  many  days — thou  shalt  not  play  the  harlot — attd  than 
shall  not  he  another  mans — and  I  will  also  (act  thus)  to  thee.  So  here, 
the  jealousy  of  Ephraim  shall  cease — the  enemies  of  Judah  among  them 
shall  be  cut  oft' — Ephraim  shall  then  no  longer  envy  Judah — and  Judah  in 
return  shall  no  longer  be  the  enemy  of  Ephraim.  The  objection  that  the 
passage  in  Hosea  is  mere  prose,  is  not  only  gratuitous,  but  concedes  the 
hberty  of  assuming  the  same  thing  in  the  case  before  us.  The  influence 
exerted  on  interpretation  by  this  theory  of  perfect  parallels  is  clear  in  this 
case,  from  the  fact  that  Hengstenberg  follows  Gesenius  without  any  hesitation, 
and  that  Ewald  (though  he  modifies  the  meaning  of  Ti'^)  adopts  the  same 
construction,  in  direct  opposition  to  his  own  authority  (Heb.  Gr.  §  208), 
which  Hitzig  had  cited  in  defence  of  the  true  interpretation.  The  tendency 
of  this  theory  is  moreover  apparent  from  the  conclusion  to  which  Hitzig 
himself  comes,  that  although  n'l'in.''  ^^iy  can  only  mean  the  enemies  of 
Judah,  the  second  clause  evidently  puts  the  other  sense  upon  it,  and  is  there- 

.  fore  an  interpolation  !  Umbreit  alone  of  the  recent  German  writers  has  the 
good  sense  and  taste  to  reject  at  once  this  wanton  mutilation  of  the  text  and 
the  forced  construction  of  the  sentence,  and  to  understand  the  sentence  in 
the  simple  and  obvious  meaning  put  upon  it  by  the  ancient  versions  and  by 


Ver.  14,  15.]  ISAIAE  XL  261 

the  older  waiters  who  have  not  been  mentioned. — The  fulfilment  of  this 
prophecy  is  found  by  Heudewerk  in  Hezekiah's  efforts  to  reclaim  the 
Israelites  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah  (2  Chron.  xxx.).  That  it  was  not  ful- 
filled in  the  return  from  exile,  is  sufficiently  notorious.  That  it  had  not 
been  fulfilled  when  Christ  came,  is  plain  from  the  continued  enmity  between 
the  Jews,  Samaritans,  and  Galileans.  The  only  fulfilment  it  has  ever  had 
is  in  the  abolition  of  all  national  and  sectional  distinctions  in  the  Christian 
Church  (Gal.  iii.  27,  29,  v.  6),  to  which  converted  Jews  as  well  as  others 
must  submit.  Its  full  accomplishment  is  yet  to  come,  in  the  re-union  of  • 
the  tribes  of  Israel  under  Christ  their  common  head  (Hosea  i.  11). — Jarchi 
explains  the  verse  to  mean  that  Messiah  the  son  of  Joseph,  and  Messiah  the 
son  of  Judah  shall  not  envy  one  another ;  Aben  Ezra,  that  Ephraim  shall 
not  be  jealous  because  the  Messiah  is  to  come  of  Judah.  Cocceius  applies 
the  prophecy  exclusively  to  future  reconciliations  in  the  Christian  Church. 
— ITlV  is  not  to  envy,  as  Schulten  argues  from  the  Arabic  analogy,  nor  to  • 
be  turbulent,  as  Ewald  gives  it,  but  to  treat  in  a  hostile  manner.  H^p  is 
strictl}-  to  depart,  i.  e.  cease  or  be  removed,  as  in  chap.  x.  27. 

14.  Instead  of  assailing  or  annoying  one  another,  they  are  represented 
as  making  common  cause  against  a  common  enemy.  And  they  (Ephraim 
and  Judah,  undivided  Israel)  sliaJl  fiy  (like  a  bird  of  prey)  upon  the 
shoulder  of  the  Philistines  toivards  the  sea  (or  westivards) — together  they 
shall  spoil  the  sons  of  the  east  (the  Arabians  and  perhaps  the  Assyrians) —  • 
Edom  and  Moah  the  stretching  out  of  their  hand  {i.  e.  the  object  of  that 
action)  and  the  children  of  Ammon  their  obedience  [i.  e.  their  subjects). 
All  the  names  are  those  of  neigbbouring  nations  with  whom  the  Hebrews 
were  accustomed  to  wage  war.  Edom,  Moab,  and  Ammon,  may  be 
specially  named  for  an  additional  reason,  viz.,  that  they  were  nearly  related 
to  Israel,  and  yet  among  his  most  inveterate  enemies.  The  Jews  explain 
this  as  a  literal  prediction  having  respect  to  the  countries  formerly  pos- 
sessed by  the  races  here  enumerated.  Most  Christian  writers  understand, 
it  spiritually  of  the  conquests  to  be  achieved  by  the  true  rehgion,  and  sup- 
pose the  nations  here  named  to  be  simply  put  for  enemies  in  general,  or 
for  the  heathen  world  ;  this  method  of  description  being  rendered  more  em- 
phatic by  the  historical  associations  which  the  names  awaken. — To  flij  upon 
means  here  to  fly  at,  or,  as  Henderson  expresses  it,  to  pounce  upon,  the- 
figure  being  that  of  an  eagle  or  other  bird  of  pre  v.  The  almost  innumerable 
meanings  put  upon  this  verse  and  its  peculiar  expressions,  may  be  louncl  in 
Poole,  Rosenmiiller,  and  Gesenius. 

15.  To  the  destruction  of  the  enemies  of  Israel  is  added  a  prediction  - 
that  all  obstacles,  even  the  most  formidable,  to  the  restoration  of  God's 
people,  shall  be  overcome  or  taken  away  by  his  almighty  power.     This 
idea  is  naturally  expressed  by  the  dividing  of  the  Red  Sea  and  Euphrates, 
because  Egypt  and  Ass}Tia  are  the  two  great  powers  from  which  Israel  had 
suffered  and  was  yet  to   be   delivered.       And  Jehovah   ivill   destroy  (by 
drying  up)  the  tongue  (or  bay)  of  the  sea  of  Egypt  (i.  e.  the  Red  Sea), 
and  he  will  wave  his  hand  (as  a  gesture  of  menace  or  a  symbol  of  miracu- 
lous  power)  over  the   river  (Euphrates),   in  the  violence  of  his  wind  (or 
breath),  and  smite  it  (the  Euphrates)  into  seven  streams,  and  make  (his 
people)  tread  (it)  in  shoes  {i.  e.  dry-shod).     The  meaning  of  dnnn  is  not*- 
to  split,  divide  (Knobel),  for  which  there  is  nothing  but  an  Arabic  analogy 
and  a  doubtful  interpretation  of  D!?n,  Lev.xxi.  18, — but  properly  to  consecrate  * 
by  an  irrevocable  vow,  and  then  by  implication  to  destroy,  which  in  this 
case  could    be  done  only  by   drying   up.      This  last  idea,  therefore,  is 


262  ISAIAH  XI.  [\eti.  16. 

included,  but  there  is  no  need  of  reading  3^"inn,  as  Houbigant,  Lowtb, 

and  Kosenmiiller  do,  on  the  authority  of  the  ancient  versions. — Tomjue, 

.  which  is  applied  in  other  languages  to  projecting  points  of  land,  is  here 

descriptive  of  a  bay  or  indentation  in  a  shore.     The  sea  of  Eg7jpt  is  not 

•  the  Nile,  as  some  suppose,  although  the  name  sea  has  been  certainly  applied 

to  it  from  the  earliest  times — but  the  Ked  Sea,  called  the  Sea  of  Egypt  for 

the  same  reason  that  it  is  called  the  Arabian  Gulf.     The  longiie  of  this  sea 

is  the  narrow  gulf  or  bay  in  which  it  terminates  to  the  north-west  near  Suez, 

called  by  the  old  writers  the   Sinus  HeroopoUtanus,  to  distinguish  it  from 

the  Siyius  Elaniticiis,  the  north-east  extremity.     Through  the  former  the 

-Israelites  passed  when  they  loft  Egypt,  and  it  is  now  predicted  that  it  shall 

.be  utterly  destroyed,  i.  e.  dried  up.     At  the  same  time  the  Euphrates  is  to 

,be  smitten  into  seven  streams,  and  so  made  fordable,  as  Cyrus  is  said  to 

have  reduced  the  Gyndes  by  diverting  its  waters  into  360  artificial  channels. 

Vitringa  supposes  a  specific  overthrow  of  Eg}-pt  and  Assyria  to  be  here 

predicted  ;  Grotius,  the  division  of  the  latter  into  several  kingdoms.     But 

the  tenns  are  probably  strong  figures  drawn  from  the  early  history  and 

experience  of  Israel.     Gesenius,  in  the  last  edition  of  his  Lexicon,  appears 

to  favour  the  reading  of  DVy  for  D''^  (in  the  strength  of  his  wind),  suggested 

by  Luzzatto,  on  the  ground  of  the  resemblance  between  ^  and  ^*  in  the  old 

-Hebrew  ali^habet.    The  other  reading,  which  occurs  only  here,  is  commonly 

explained  to  mean  violent  heat,  and  then  secondarily  violence  in  general. 

16.  And  there  shall  he  a  highway  for  the  remnant  of  his  people,  which 
shall  he  left,  from  Assyria,  as  there  was  for  Israel,  in  the  day  of  his  com- 
ing up  from  the  land  of  Egypt.  This  verse  admits  of  two  interpretations. 
-  According  to  one,  it  is  a  comparision  of  the  former  deliverance  from  Egypt 
with  the  future  one  from  Assyria  and  the  neighboming  countries,  where 
most  Jewish  exiles  were  to  be  found.  According  to  the  other,  it  is  a  rcpe- 
•  tition  of  the  preceding  promise,  that  previous  deliverances,  particularly  those 
from  Egypt  and  Assyria,  should  be  repeated  in  the  future  history  of  the 
Church.  The  fulfilment  has  been  sought  by  difierent  interpreters,  in  the 
,  return  from  Babylon,  in  the  general  progress  of  the  gospel,  and  in  the  futui-e 
restoration  of  the  Jews.  The  first  of  these  can  at  most  be  regarded  only 
as  a  partial  or  inchoate  fulfilment,  and  against  the  last  lies  the  obvious 
objection  that  the  context  contains  promises  and  threatenings  which  are 
obviously  figurative,  although  so  expressed  as  to  contain  allusions  to  remark- 
able events  in  the  experience  of  Israel.  Such  is  the  dividing  or  drying  up 
of  the  tongue  of  the  lied  Sea,  which  must  either  be  figuratively  understood 
or  supposed  to  refer  to  a  future  miracle,  which  last  hypothesis  is  certainly 
not  necessar}',  and  therefore  can  be  fully  justified  by  nothing  but  the  actual 
.  event. — n?pp  is  not  simply  a  way,  as  the  ancient  versions  give  it,  nor  a 
fortified  way  as  Cocceius  explains  it  (via  munita),  but  a  highway  as  explained 
by  Junius  (agger)  and  Henderson  (causey),  an  artificial  road  formed  by 
casting  up  the  earth  (from  ^^D  to  raise),  and  thus  distinguished  from  a  path 
Avorn  by  the  feet  C^"]"!!  or  nnTlJ.).  Knobel,  and  some  other  of  the  later  writers, 
suppose  an  allusion  to  the  desert  after  the  crossing  of  the  water,  whereas  all 
the  older  \\Titers  understand  a  way  through  the  water  itself.  Grotius  and 
Ivnobel  connect  1"Iw''K0  ^vith  n<PP,  others  with  "iKL''ri,  as  in  ver.  11.  The 
ambiguity  of  the  Hebrew  construction  is  skilfully  retained  in  the  English 
version. 


Ver.  1.1  ISAIAH  XII.  2G3 


CHAPTEE  XII. 

Taking  occasion  from  the  reference  to  Egypt  and  the  exodus  in  the  close 
of  the  preceding  chapter,  the  Prophet  now  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Israel  a 
song  analogous  to  that  of  Moses,  from  which  some  of  the  expressions  are 
du-ectly  borrowed.  The  structure  of  this  psalm  is  very  regular,  consisting 
of  two  parts,  in  each  of  which  the  Prophet  first  tells  the  people  what  they 
will  say,  or  have  a  right  to  say,  when  the  foregoing  promises  are  verified, 
and  then  addresses  them  again  in  his  own  person  and  in  the  usual 
language  of  prediction.  In  the  first  stanza,  they  ai-e  made  to  acknowledge 
the  divine  compassion  and  to  express  then.'  confidence  in  God  as  the  source 
of  all  their  strength,  and  therefore  the  rightful  object  of  their  praise,  vers. 
1—3.  In  the  second  stanza,  they  exhort  one  another  to  make  known  what 
God  has  done  for  them,  not  only  at  home  but  among  all  nations,  and  are 
exhorted  by  the  Prophet  to  rejoice  in  the  manifested  presence  of  Jehovah, 
vers.  4-6. 

Ewald  rejects  this  chapter,  as  an  addition  made  by  some  reader  or  tran- 
scriber of  Isaiah  later  than  the  exile.  His  reasons  are,  that  the  prophecy 
is  wound  up  and  complete  at  the  close  of  the  eleventh  chapter,  and  that 
the  style,  phraseology,  and  tone,  are  not  those  of  Isaiah.  The  first  of 
these  reasons  he  refutes  himself  by  saying  that  the  reference  to  Egypt  in 
chap.  xi.  16,  probably  suggested  this  addition  to  the  later  writer  ;  a  hypo- 
thesis which  we  are  equally  at  liberty  to  appty  to  Isaiah  himself,  unless  the 
passage  is  manifestly  from  another  hand.  This  I'educes  Ewald's  argu- 
ments to  one,  and  to  that  one  Umbreit  gives  a  sufiicient  answer  when  he 
says  that  the  Prophet,  intending  to  wind  up  his  prophecy  with  a  composi- 
tionin  the  nature  of  a  psalm,  adopts  of  course  the  general  style,  which 
from  the  time  of  David  had  been  used  for  that  purpose.  That  he  did  not 
rather  copy  the  manner  of  Moses,  may  be  explained,  not  only  on  the 
ground  that  the  other  style  had  now  become  familiar  to  the  people,  but 
also  on  the  ground  that  such  an  imitation  might  have  made  the  comparison 
with  Egypt  and  the  exodus  too  prominent  for  the  Prophet's  purpose,  which 
was  to  express  thanksgiving  in  a  manner  appropriate  to  all  the  deliver- 
ances of  the  Church  fi'om  evil,  whether  natural  or  spii'itual.  Hence  too 
the  indefiniteness  of  the  language,  and  a  seeming  want  of  intimate  connection 
with  the  foregoing  prophecy. 

1.  And  thou — Israel,  the  people  of  God — shalt  say  in  that  day — when 
the  foregoing  promise  is  accomplished — I ivill praise  thee — strictly  acknow- 
ledge thee  as  worth}',  and  as  a  benefactor — -for  thou  wast  angry  ivith  me,  hut 
thine  anger  is  turned  aioay,  and  thou  comfortest  me. — The  English  version 
renders  ''3  though,  but  according  to  the  Masoretic  interpunction,  it  must  be 
read  with  the  preceding  words.  The  apparent  incongi-uity  of  thanking 
God  because  he  was  angry,  is  removed  by  considering  that  the  subject  of 
the  thanksgiving  is  the  whole  complex  idea  expressed  in  the  remainder  of 
the  verse,  of  which  God's  being  angry  is  only  one  element.  It  was  not 
simply  because  God  was  angiy  that  the  people  praise  him,  but  because  he 
was  angry  and  his  anger  had  ceased.  The  same  idea  is  expressed  by  the 
English  version  in  another  fonn,  by  intimating  early  in  the  sentence  the 
relation  of  its  parts,  whereas  it  is  characteristic  of  the  Hebrew  style  to  state 
things  absolutely  first,  and  qualify  them  afterwards.  The  same  mode  of 
expression  is  used  by  Paul  in  Greek,  when  he  says  (Rom.  vi.  17),  "  God  be 
thanked  that  ye  were  the  servants  of  sin,  but  ye  have  from  the  heart  obeyed, 


264  ISAIAH  XII.  [Ver.  2-4. 

&c."  This  view  of  the  matter  precludes  the  necessity  of  taking  TIIJ^  in  the 
sense  oi  I  ackuowhdije  thee  to  have  been  just  in  being  angry  at  me.  The 
force  of  the  particle  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  clause  can  be  fully  re- 
presented only  by  the  English  hid. — 3^*)  is  the  abbreviated  form  of  the 
future,  commonly  used  to  express  a  wish  or  a  command,  in  which  sense 
some  explain  it  here,  taking  this  clause  as  a  prayer  for  deliverance.  But 
this  would  confine  the  expression  of  thanksgiving  to  God's  being  angi-y,  the 
very  incongruity  which  has  just  been  shown  not  to  exist.  It  must  be  taken 
either  as  a  poetical  substitute  for  3VJ'^  with  a  present  meaning,  or  as  con- 
tra-ted  for  3^*1  in  a  past  sense,  which  is  given  in  most  versions.  The 
force  of  the  verb  in  this  connection  is  enhanced  by  a  comparison  with  chap. 
X.  -1,  and  the  parallel  verse  of  the  foregoing  context,  where  it  is  said  re- 
peatedly that  God's  wrath  had  not  turned  back  or  away  (3^  vh).  Thou 
comfortcst  me,  not  by  words  only,  but  by  deeds,  which  may  seem  to  justify 
the  version  tlicu  hast  mercy  on  vie,  given  by  some  writers. 

2.  Behold  God  is  my  salvation.  I  loill  trust,  and  not  he  afraid ;  for 
my  strength  and  song  is  Jah  Jehovah,  and  he  is  hecome  my  salvation. 
Some  exchange  the  abstract  for  the  concrete,  my  Saviour,  but  with  a  great 
loss  of  strength  in  the  expression.  The  first  verb  may  be  rendered  in  the 
present  (I  trust  J,  as  describing  an  actual  state  of  mind  ;  but  the  future 
form,  while  it  sufficiently  implies  this,  at  the  same  time  expresses  a  fixed 
determination,  I  will  trust,  be  confident,  secure.  The  next  words  contain 
a  negative  expression  of  the  same  idea.  In  certain  connections,  TV  seems 
to  denote  power  as  an  element  of  glory,  an  object  of  admiration,  and  a  sub- 
ject of  praise.  Hence  Gesenius  and  others  assign  praise  as  a  secondary 
meaning  of  the  word  itself,  which  is  pushing  the  deduction  and  distinction 
of  senses  to  extremes.  Jarchi  observes  that  ''IIJ,  with  6  in  the  first  syllable 
is  never  used  except  in  combination  with  n^p*,  the  orthography  elsewhere 
being  always  "'TV.  This  variation  may,  however,  be  euphonic,  and  have 
no  connection  with  a  difference  of  meaning.  My  praise  and  my  song  gives 
a  good  sense,  but  no  better,  and  assuredly  no  stronger,  than  my  strength 
and  my  song,  i.  e.  the  source  of  my  protection  and  the  subject  of  my  praise. 
Kimchi  and  others  regard  ^I^PI,  here,  and  in  the  parallel  passages,  as  an 
al)breviation  of  "Tl^^^ !  ^'^^  ^^^  modern  writers  make  it  a  collateral  or  cog- 
nate form  of  ^yP),  and  supply  the  suffix  from  the  preceding  word. — Coc- 
ccius  derives  J^J  from  HNJ  to  be  suitable,  becoming,  and  considers  it  an 
abstract  denoting  the  divine  perfection.  It  is  much  more  probably  an  ab- 
breviation of  nin^,  and  as  such  occurs  at  the  end  of  many  compound  proper 
names.  In  the  song  of  Moses,  from  which  this  expression  is  borrowed, 
njn^  is  omitted  (Exod.  xv.  2),  as  also  in  Ps.  cxviii.  14,  which  is  copied  from 
the  same.  Nor  does  the  combination  ninj  v\\  occur  elsewhere,  except  in 
Isa.  xxvi.  4.  Some  of  the  modern  writers,  therefore,  have  contended  that 
nin^  is  superfluous.  But  the  fact  of  its  occurrence  in  another  passage  of 
this  very  book  precludes  this  emendation  in  the  absence  of  external  evidence. 
There  is  really  nothing  more  surprising  in  the  combination  than  in  the  fre- 
quent accumulation  of  the  other  divine  names. 

3.  And  ye  shall  draw  tvater  ivith  joy  from  the  S2:)rings  of  salvation. — 
This  is  a  natural  and  common  figure  for  obtaining  and  enjoying  divine 
favour.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing  a  pf\rticular  allusion  to  the  doctrines 
of  religion.  By  this  verse  the  Talmudisis  explain  and  justify  the  custom  of 
pouring  out  water  from  the  fountain  of  Siloam  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  a 
ceremony  no  doubt  long  posterior  to  the  time  of  Isaiah. 

4.  And  ye  shall  say  (to  one  another)  in  that  day,  j)raise  (or  give  thanks 


Ver.  5,  6.]  ISAIAE  XIII.  XIV.  205 

to)  Jehovah,  call  upon  his  name  (proclaim  it),  make  known  among  the  nations 
his  exploits  (or  achievements),  remind  (them)  that  his  name  is  exalted. 
Some  take  •"1"I''?.Tl1  in  the  sense  of  praising,  celebrating,  and  translate  ''3  for, 
becaus3,  in  which  case  what  follows  is  not  the  subject  but  the  reason  of  the 
praise.  The  English  Bible  has  make  mention  ;  but  the  strict  sense  of  the 
Hiphil  as  a  causative  is  perfectly  appropriate  and  suits  the  context.  Name 
is  here  used  in  the  pregnant  sense  of  that  whereby  God  makes  himself 
known,  including  explicit  revelation  and  the  exhibition  of  his  attributes  in  all. 
On  the  usage  of  this  word  in  the  Psalms,  see  Hengstenberg  on  Ps.  viii.  1. 

5.  Praise  Jehovah  {hy  singing,  and  perhaps  with  instruments)  because 
lie  has  done  elevation  (or  sublimity,  i.  e.  a  sublime  deed).  Knoiun  is  this 
(or  he  this)  in  all  the  earth. — I^T  means  properly  to  play  upon  stringed  in- 
struments, then  to  sing  with  an  accompaniment,  then  to  sing  in  general, 
then  to  praise  by  singing  or  by  music  generally.  In  this  last  sense  it  may 
govern  the  noun  directly. — The  English  Version,  excellent  things,  is  too  in- 
definite for  the  singular  form  niNjI.. — The  Kethib  nVT'O  is  the  Pual,  the 
Keri  riVTlD  the  Hophal  participle,  of  y"I\  to  knoiv.  Both  forms  are  causa- 
tive and  passive,  made  knoivn,  caused  to  be  known.  Knobel  conjectures 
that  riyi'^p  may  have  been  a  noun,  synonymous  with  OyilD,  and  analogous 
in  form  to  riyQ'»p  from  VPI. — The  Enghsh  Version  supplies  is,  and  makes 
the  last  clause  an  appeal  to  the  whole  world  for  the  truth  of  the  thing  cele- 
brated. Most  of  the  recent  versions  make  it  an  imperative  expression,  ex- 
horting to  a  general  difi'usion  of  the  truth. 

6.  Cry  out  and  shout  (or  sing),  oh  inhahitant  of  Z ion  (the  people  or  the 
Church  personified  as  a  woman), /or  great  in  the  midst  of  thee  (residing  in 
thee  by  a  special  manifestation  of  his  presence)  is  the  Holy  One  of  Israel 
(that  Holy  Being  who  has  bound  himself  to  Israel,  in  a  peculiar  and  extra- 
ordinary manner,  as  their  covenant  God). 


CHAPTEES  XIII.  XIV. 

Here  begins  a  series  of  prophecies  (chaps.  XIII. — XXIII.)  against  certain 
foreign  powers,  from  the  enmity  of  which  Israel  had  been  more  or  less  a 
sufferer.  The  first  in  the  series  is  a  memorable  prophecy  of  the  fall  of  the 
Babylonian  empire  and  the  destruction  of  Babjdon  itself  (chaps.  XIII.,  XIV.) 
The  Medes  are  expressly  named  as  the  instruments  of  its  subjection,  and 
the  prophecy  contains  several  other  remarkable  coincidences  with  history, 
both  sacred  and  profane.  Hence  it  was  justly  regarded  by  the  older  writers, 
both  Jews  and  Christians,  as  an  extraordinary  instance  of  i^rophetic  fore- 
sight. As  such,  even  J.  D.  Michaelis  defends  it  against  the  hypothesis 
(then  a  novel  one)  of  an  ex  post  facto  prophecy  invented  for  the  purpose  of 
inducing  Cyrus  to  befriend  the  Jews.  He  argues  conclusively  against  this 
supposition,  on  the  ground  that  the  literary  merit  of  the  passage  is  too  exqui- 
site for  such  an  origin,  and  that  the  writer,  in  the  case  supposed,  could  not 
have  represented  the  destruction  of  Babylon  as  total  without  defeating  his 
own  purpose.  The  last  objection  also  lies  against  Eichhorn's  supposition 
of  a  prophecy  written  after  the  event  but  without  any  fraudulent  design, 
the  foi'm  of  prediction  being  merely  a  poetical  costume.  Rosenmiiller  holds 
that  it  was  written  towards  the  close  of  the  Babylonish  exile,  while  the 
events  which  it  describes  were  in  progress,  or  so  near  at  hand  as  to  be 
readily  foreseen.  This  view  of  the  matter  is  also  taken  by  Gesenius  and 
the  later  German  writers  on  Isaiah.     The  arguments  in  favour  of  it,  as 


266  ISAIAU  XIII.  XIV. 

recently  stated  by  Knobel,  may  be  reduced  to  three  :  (1)  a  spirit  miwortby 
of  Isaiah,  i.  e.  one  of  bitter  hatred  and  desire  of  revenge ;  (''A)  a  want  of 
rescuiblauce  in  the  st^-lc  and  diction  to  the  genuine  writings  of  Isaiah,  and 
a  strong  resemblance  to  some  later  compositions ;  (3)  a  constant  allusion 
to  historical  events  andHa  state  of  things  which  did  not  exist  for  ages  after 
Isaiah.  The  answer  to  the  iirst  reason  is  that  it  is  false.  Such  is  not  the 
natural  impression  which  the  prophecy  would  make  on  an  unbiassed  reader. 
This  perversion  has  been  unintentionally  aided  b_y  a  rhetorical  mistake  of 
Calvin  and  other  Christian  interpreters  in  representing  the  fourteenth  chap- 
ter as  taunting  and  sarcastic  in  its  tone,  which,  on  the  contrary,  is  characterized 
by  pathos.  But  even  on  this  erroneous  supposition,  there  is  nothing  to 
justify  the  charge  of  bitter  vengefulness,  brought  for  the  first  time  by  the 
latest  German  writers,  with  an  obvious  design  to  strengthen  their  weak 
arguments  derived  from  other  sources.  The  second  argument  is  unsound 
in  principle  and  precarious  in  application.  On  the  ground  that  eveiy 
writer  always  writes  alike,  only  one  composition  of  any  author  can  be  cer- 
tainly proved  genuine.  The  Satires  of  Horace  must  be  spurious  because 
he  was  a  IjtIc  poet — the  Georgics  of  Yirgil  because  he  was  an  epic  poet 
— the  Plaideurs  of  Racine  because  he  was  a  tragic  poet.  One  half  of 
Aristophanes  and  Shakspeare  might  be  thus  made  to  prove  the  other  half 
a  forgery.  This  mode  of  criticism  is  peculiarly  German,  and  will  never 
commend  itself  to  the  general  taste  and  judgment  of  the  learned  world. 
The  same  thing  may  be  said  of  the  attempt  to  ascertain  the  age  of 
ancient  wTitings  by  a  comparison  of  words  and  phrases.  One  critic  singles 
out  whatever,  taken  by  itself,  appears  to  favour  his  own  foregone  conclusion, 
and  leaves  the  rest  unnoticed.  Another,  with  another  end  in  \ie\v,  might 
prove  the  contraiy  by  the  self- same  process.  This  is  not  only  possible  but 
actually  done.  Thus  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  prove  that  Isaiah  could  not 
have  written  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  chapters,  by  an  enumeration  of 
diversities  in  diction,  phraseology,  grammatical  construction,  style,  &c. 
Hendewerk  just  as  clearly  proves,  by  a  specification  of  minute  but  remark- 
able coincidences,  that  Isaiah  must  have  been  the  author.  Admitting  that 
the  second  demonstration  is  worth  no  more  than  the  first,  they  may  at  least 
serve  to  cancel  one  another,  and  to  shew  the  fallacy  of  all  such  I'easoning. 
This  argument  proves  nothing  by  itself,  because  it  proves,  or  may  be  made 
to  prove,  too  much.  The  true  strength  of  the  doctrine  now  in  question 
lies  not  in  the  moral  or  philological  arguments  which  have  been  noticed, 
but  in  the  historical  one,  that  these  chapters  contain  statements  and  allu- 
sions which  imply  a  knowledge  of  what  happened  long  after  Isaiah's  death. 
Hijz'f^  says  expressly  that  a  prophecy  against  Babylon  before  the  time  of 
Jeremiah  is  impossible.  This  of  course  is  tantamount  to  saying  that  pro- 
phetic inspiration  is  impossible.  And  this  is,  after  all,  the  only  question 
of  importance.  If  there  cannot  be  prophetic  foresight,  then  of  course  a 
reference  to  subsequent  events  fixes  the  date  of  the  writing  which  contains 
it.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  such  a  thing  as  inspiration  and  prophetic 
foresight,  there  is  nothing  to  weaken  the  presumption  created  by  a  unifonn 
tradition,  the  immemorial  position  of  this  prophecy,  and  the  express  tei'ms 
of  a  title  not  less  ancient  than  the  text,  of  which,  according  to  oriental 
usage,  it  is  really  a  part.  The  point  at  issue,  therefore,  between  Christian 
and  infidel  interpreters  has  reference  not  to  w^ords  and  phrases  merely,  but 
to  the  possibility  and  reality  of  inspiration.  Assuming  this,  we  can  have 
no  hesitation  in  regarding  the  prophecy  before  us  as  a  genuine  production 
of  Isaiah. — Of  those  who  take  this  ground,  Cocceius  seems  to  stand  alone 


ISAIAH  XIII.  XIV.  2G7 

in  questioning  the  literal  application  of  the  prophecy  to  Babylon  in  the 
proper  sense.  He  refers  it  partly  to  ancient  Israel,  partly  to  Antichrist,  a 
theory  which  condemns  itself,  as  equally  arbitrary  and  inconsistent.  Gro- 
Jius.  as  usual,  goes  to  the  opposite  extreme,  of  supposing  that  this  is  a 
byperl^oHt^pl  desrviptinn  of  evils  which  were  to  be  experienced  by  Babylon 
before  it  reached  the  zenith  of  its  greatness  under  Nebuchadnezzar, — a  hypo- 
thesis as  arbitrary  as  the  other,  and,  moreover,  chargeable  with  contradict- 
ing history.  Some  particular  absurdities  of  both  these  schemes  will  be 
brought  to  view  in  the  exposition.  The  great  majority  of  Christian  writers 
understand  these  chapters  as  a  specific  prophecy  of  the  downfall  of  the 
Babylonian  empire  occasioned  by  the  conquests  of  the  Mcdes  and  Persians. 
To  this  event  there  are  repeated  unequivocal  allusions.  There  are  some 
points,  however,  in  which  the  coincidence  of  prophecy  and  history  on  this 
hypothesis  is  not  so  clear.  This  is  especially  the  case  with  respect  to  the 
total  destruction  and  annihilation  of  the  city  itself,  which  was  brought  about 
by  a  gradual  process  through  a  course  of  ages.  The  true  solution  of  this 
difficulty  is,  that  the  prediction  is  generic,  not  specific  ;  that  it  is  not  a 
detailed  account  of  one  event  exclusively,  but  a  prophetic  picture  of  the  fall 
of  Babylon  considered  as  a  whole,  some  of  the  traits  being  taken  from  the 
fii'st,  and  some  from  the  last  stage  of  the  fatal  process,  while  others  are  in- 
definite or  common  to  all.  The  same  idea  may  be  otherwise  expressed  by 
saying  that  the  king  of  Babylon,  whose  fall  is  here  predicted,  is  neither 
Nebuchadnezzar  nor  Belshazzar,  bvit  the  kings  of  Babylon  collectively,  or 
rather  an  ideal  king  of  Babylon,  in  whom  the  character  and  fate  of  the 
■whole  empire  are  concentrated.  Some  of  the  terms  applied  to  him  may 
therefore  be  literally  true  of  one  king,  some  of  another,  some  individually 
of  none,  although  descriptive  of  the  whole.  This  hypothesis,  while  it 
removes  all  discrepancies,  still  retains  the  wonderful  coincidences  of  the 
prophecy  with  history,  and  makes  them  more  remarkable,  by  scattering 
them  through  so  vast  a  field.  Even  if  the  allusions  to  the  conquest  of 
Cyrus  could  be  resolved  into  conjecture  or  contemporary  knowledge,  how 
shall  we  account  for  a  description  of  the  fate  of  the  great  city,  not  once  for 
all,  but  down  to  the  present  moment  ?  Even  supposing  that  the  writer  of 
this  prophecy  lived  at  the  time  of  Cyrus,  how  will  the  infidel  interpreter 
account  for  his  prediction  of  that  total  desolation,  which  was  not  consum- 
mated for  ages  afterwards,  but  which  now  exists  to  the  full  extent  of  the 
prophetic  description  in  its  strongest  sense.  On  the  one  hand,  we  have 
only  to  believe  that  Isaiah  was  inspired  of  God ;  on  the  other,  we  must 
hold  that  a  wi-iter  of  the  very  highest  genius  either  personated  the  Prophet, 
or  was  confounded  with  him  by  the  ancient  Jews,  and  that  this  anonymous 
writer,  whose  very  name  is  lost,  without  any  inspiration,  uttered  a  predic- 
tion which  then  seemed  falsified  by  the  event,  but  which  has  since  been 
accidentally  fulfilled  ! — It  is  universally  admitted  that  the  thirteenth  chap- 
ter, and  the  greater  part,  if  not  the  whole,  of  the  fourteenth,  constitute  a 
single  prophecy.  The  division  of  the  chapters  is,  however,  not  a  wrong 
one.  Both  parts  relate  to  the  destruction  of  Babj^lon,  setting  out  from 
God's  decree,  and  winding  up  with  the  threatening  of  total  desolation. 
Chap.  xiv.  is  therefore  not  a  mere  continuation  of  chap,  xiii.,  but  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  same  matter  in  another  form.  The  difference  of  form  is  chiefly 
this,  that  while  chap.  xiii.  is  more  historical  in  its  arrangement,  chap.  xiv. 
is  dramatic,  or  at  least  poetical.  Another  point  of  difterence  is,  that  in 
chap.  xiii.  the  downfall  of  Babj-lon  is  represented  rather  as  an  act  of  divine 
vengeance,  in  chap.  xiv.  as  a  means  of  deliverance  to  Israel,  the  denuncia- 


268  ISAIAH  XIIL  [Ver.  1,  2. 

tions  of  divine  wrath  being  there  clothed  in  the  form  of  a  triumphant  song, 
to  be  sung  by  Israel  when  Babylon  is  fallen. — Cocceius,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  applies  this  part  of  the  prediction  secondarily  but  strictly  to  the  fall 
of  Antichrist.  Man}'  other  of  the  older  writers  make  this  the  mystical  or 
secondary  sense  of  the  whole  prophecy,  because  they  understand  it  to  be 
so  explained  in  the  Apocalypse.  The  truth,  however,  seems  to  be,  first, 
that  the  downfall  of  Babylon,  as  a  great  anti-theocratic  power,  an  opponent 
and  persecutor  of  the  ancient  church,  affords  a  type  or  emblem  of  the  des- 
tiny of  all  opposing  powers  under  the  New  Testament ;  and  secondly,  that 
in  consequence  of  this  analogy,  the  Apocalyptic  prophecies  apply  the  name 
Babylon  to  the  Antichristian  power.  But  these  Apocalyptic  prophecies  aro 
new  ones,  not  interpretations  of  the  one  before  us. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

After  a  title,  the  prophecy  opens  with  a  summons  to  the  chosen  instru- 
ment of  God's  righteous  judgments  upon  Babylon,  who  are  described  as  mus- 
tered by  the  Lord  himself,  and  then  appearing,  to  the  terror  and  amazement 
of  the  Babylonians,  who  are  unable  to  resist  their  doom,  vers.  1-9.  The 
great  catastrophe  is  then  described  in  a  series  of  beautiful  figures,  as  an 
extinction  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  a  general  commotion  in  the  frame  of 
nature,  explained  by  the  Prophet  himself  to  mean  a  fearful  visitation  of  Je- 
hovah, making  men  more  rare  than  gold,  dispersing  the  strangers  resident 
at  Babylon,  and  subjecting  the  inhabitants  to  the  worst  inflictions  at  the 
hands  of  the  Medes,  who  are  expressly  mentioned  as  the  instruments  of  the 
divine  vengeance,  and  described  as  indifferent  to  gain  and  relentless  in  their 
cruelty,  vers.  10-18.  From  this  beginning  of  the  process  of  destruction,  we 
are  then  hurried  on  to  its  final  consummation,  the  completeness  of  which  is 
expressed  by  a  comparison  with  the  overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah, 
and  by  a  prediction  that  the  site  of  Babylon  shall  not  be  frequented,  even  by 
the  wandering  Arab,  or  by  shepherds  and  their  flocks,  but  only  by  solitary 
animals,  whose  presence  is  itself  a  sign  of  utter  desolation,  vers.  19-22. 

1.  The  burden  of  Bahylon  (or  threatening  prophecy  respecting  it),  which 
Isaiah,  the  son  of  A  nioz  saio  {recei\ed  by  revelation).  There  are  two  in- 
terpretations of  ^'^V,  both  very  ancient.  The  one  makes  it  simply  mean  a 
declaration  (from  t^-?'?  to  utter),  or  more  specifically  a  divine  declaration,  a 
prophecy,  oracle,  or  vision.  The  Septuagint  translates  it  by  oiairi;,  o^a.aa 
and  sometimes  by  ?.^/x,aa  (from  i<"^'^  to  receive).  The  Vulgate  has  risio. 
This  interpretation  is  adopted  by  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Lowth, 
and  ail  the  recent  German  writers.  Henderson  has  sentence.  The  other 
explanation  gives  the  word  the  sense  of  a  minatory  prophecy.  So  Luther, 
Calvin,  and,  in  our  own  day,  Hengstenberg,  who  denies  that  the  word  is  ever 
applied  to  any  prediction  but  a  minatory  one,  even  Zech.  xii.  1  being  no 
exception.  (See  his  exposition  of  Zech.  ix.  1,  in  his  Christologie,  vol.  ii. 
p.  102.)  He  also  alleges  that  the  word  is  never  joined  like  DN^  with  the 
name  of  God  or  of  any  other  person  but  the  subject  of  the  prophecy.  For 
those  reasons,  and  because  ^^'^'P,  in  other  connections  always  means  a  burden, 
it  is  best  to  retain  the  common  explanation,  which  is  also  given  by  Barnes. 
This  word  occurs  in  the  titles  of  all  the  distinct  prophecies  of  this  second 
part.  The  one  before  us  is  rejected  by  Hit/.ig  and  FiWald,  as  the  addition  of  a 
copyist  or  compiler,  but  without  the  least  external  evidence  or  sutlicicnt  reason. 

2.  The  attack  of  the  IMcdes  and  Persians  upon  Babylon  is  now  foretold. 


Veu.  3.]  ISAIAH  XIII.  209 

not  in  Ibe  proper  form  of  a  prediction,  nor  even  in  that  of  a  description, 
which  is  often  substituted  for  it,  but  in  that  of  an  order  from  Jehovah  to 
his  ministers  to  summon  the  invaders,  first,  by  an  elevated  signal,  and  then 
as  they  draw  nearer,  by  gestures  and  the  voice.  I'poii  a  hare  hill  {i.  e.  one 
with  a  clear  summit,  not  concealed  by  trees)  set  vp  a  signal,  raise  the  voice, 
(shout  or  cry  aloud)  to  them  (the  Medes  and  Persians),  wave  the  hand,  and 
let  them  enter  the  gates  of  the  (Babylonian)  nobles. — Forerius  takes  nStl'J  as 
the  proper  name  of  a  mountain,  dividing  Chaldea  from  Persia  iind  Media. 
The  Vulgate  renders  it  caliginosum,  which  Jerome  applies  to  the  spiritual 
darkness  of  the  Babylonians,  and  Grotius  to  the  fogs  and  mists  arising  from 
the  marshy  situation  of  the  city.  The  Targum  paraphrases  the  expression 
as  denoting  a  city  secure  and  confident  of  safety.  Kimchi,  Luther,  Calvin, 
and  most  of  the  early  Christian  writers,  with  Augusti,  Barnes,  and  Lee,  in 
later  times,  give  it  ihe  sense  of  lo/ly.  But  the  latest  lexicographers  and 
commentators  seem  to  be  agreed  that  the  true  sense  is  that  of  bai-e  or  bald. 
The  Septuagint  version  (^ooovi  -Tidivoij)  is  explained  by  Gesenius  as  descrip- 
tive of  a  mountain  with  a  fiat  or  level  top,  but  the  older  writers  understand 
it  as  denoting  a  mountain  surrounded  by  a  plain,  a  metaphorical  description 
of  Babylon.  It  is  not,  however,  a  description  of  the  city,  but  an  allusion 
to  the  usual  method  of  erecting  signals  on  a  lofty  and  conspicuous  spot.  As 
the  expression  is  indefinite — a  mountain — ihere  is  no  need  of  supposing 
with  Vitringa  a  particular  allusion  to  the  Zagrian  mountains  between  Media 
and  Babylonia.  Jerome  and  Cocceius  suppose  the  angels  to  be  here  ad- 
dressed ;  Knobel  and  others,  the  captive  Jews  ;  but  it  is  best  to  understand 
the  words  indefinitely,  as  addressed  to  those  whose  proper  work  it  was  to  do 
the  thing  commanded.  Jehovah  being  here  represented  as  a  military  leader, 
the  order  is  of  course  to  be  conceived  as  given  to  his  heralds  or  other  officers. 
They  are  not  commanded  to  display  a  banner  as  a  sign  of  victory  (Cyril), 
but  to  erect  a  signal  for  the  purpose  of  collecting  troops.  There  is  no  need 
of  supposing  with  Vitringa  and  Henderson  that  ?1p  means  the  sound  of  the 
trumpet.  The  subjunctive  construction  of  "IS3''1  given  by  most  writers  (that 
they  may  enter),  is  not  only  unnecessary,  but  much  less  expressive  than  the 
obvious  construction  which  supposes  the  command  to  be  continued.  The 
nobles  are  not  those  of  Media  and  Persia,  to  whose  doors  Clericus  supposes 
the  soldiers  to  he  summoned  for  the  purpose  of  enlisting  in  this  service,  but 
those  of  Babylon.  The  specific  sense  of  tyrants,  which  Gesenius  and  the 
later  Germans  put  upon  this  word,  is  wholly  unauthorized  by  the  analogy 
of  Job  xxi.  28,  unless  we  assume  that  parallel  terms  must  always  be  syno- 
n3'mous.  Other  constructions  of  the  last  clause  have  been  given  by  the 
Septuagint  (ai/o/^ars  o'l  a^-^ovzig) — the  Vulgate  (ingrediantur  portas  duces) 
— Schmidius  (ut  veniant  portae  principum) — Koppe  (voluntarii  portas 
aperite) — Doderelin  (ut  veniant  enses  evaginati  voluntariorum)— J.  D. 
Michaelis  (dass  meine  Freywillige  sich  vor  meiner  Pforte  versammlen)  &c. 
All  these  involve  a  change  of  text  or  a  harshness  of  construction.  Lowth 
omits  DH?,  as  of  no  use,  and  rather  weakening  the  sentence.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  strengthens  it  by  an  abrupt  reference  to  the  invaders  without  naming 
them,  as  being  too  well  known  already. 

3.  The  enemies  thus  summoned  are  described  as  chosen,  designated  in- 
struments of  the  divine  vengeance,  and  as  already  exulting  in  the  certainty 
of  their  success.  I  (myself)  have  given  command  (or  a  commission)  to  my 
consecrated  (chosen  and  appointed  instruments).  Yes  (literally,  also),  I  have 
called  (forth)  my  mighty  ones  (or  heroes)  for  (the  execution  of)  my  wrath, 
my  proud  exulters. — The  insertion  of  ''^^  is  not  an  idiom  of  the  later  Hebrew, 


270  ISAIAH  XIII.  [Ver.  4. 

as  explained  by  Gesenius  (Lebrg.  p.  801),  but  as  Manrer  bas  con-ectly 
stated,  au  emphatic  designation  of  God  as  the  sole  efficient  agent,  I  myself, 
or  /  even  I.  ^tJ'Ipf^  bas  no  reference  to  tbe  moral  character  or  paqjose  of 
the  instruments,  but  simply  to  God's  choice  and  preparation  of  them  for 
their  work.  Tbe  Chaldee  Paraphrase  makes  tbe  last  of  these  ideas,  that  of 
preparation,  too  exclusively  prominent.  Henderson  and  Knobel  suppose  a 
special  reference  to  the  religious  ceremonies  practised  before  going  out  to 
war  (1  Sam.  vii.  9,  xiii.  9 ;  2  Chron.  xiii.  12.  Comp.  Gen.  xiv.  14).  But 
as  this  would  not  be  strictly  applicable  to  the  Medos  and  Persians,  it  seems 
more  natural  to  suppose  that  K'lp  is  here  used  in  its  primary  and  proper 
sense  of  separating,  setting  apart,  or  consecrating  to  a  special  use  or  service. 
The  03  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  clause  is  arbitrarily  omitted  by  Ge- 
senius and  De  Wette,  but  retained  by  Ewald  and  Umbreit.  To  call  out  is 
here  explained  by  liosenmiiller  as  denoting  specially  a  call  to  military  ser- 
vice. It  may,  however,  have  the  general  sense  of  summoning  or  calling 
upon  by  name.  ^1133  is  commonly  regarded  as  simply  equivalent  to  ^tJ'npO  ; 
but  Knobel  understands  the  former  as  a  specific  epithet  of  chiefs  or  officers. 
Augusti,  Barnes,  and  most  of  the  older  writers,  understand  the  last  words 
of  the  verse  as  meaning  those  ivho  exult  in  my  f/reatness,  or  in  my  rj real  plan 
(Barnes)  ;  Kimchi  and  Jarchi,  those  by  whom  I  glorify  myself.  But  the 
other  modern  writers  have  adopted  the  construction  of  Cocceius  and  Vitringa, 
■who  refer  the  suffix  to  the  first  word  or  the  whole  phrase,  a  common  Hebrew 
idiom  (Gesen.  §  cxix,  5) — my  exulters  of  pride,  {i.  e.  my  proud  exulters). 
This  may  be  understood  as  a  description  of  the  confidence  with  which  they 
anticipated  victory  ;  but  most  interpreters  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  natm-al 
character  of  the  Persians  as  described  by  Croesus  in  Herodotus  {jpitsiv  sowing 
vj3^iSTai) — by  Herodotus  himself  {vo/Mi^ov-ig  iavroiig  uvai  ai&iui-uv  (MaxP'p  ra 
vdvTa  dilarovg) — by  ^Eschylus  (-j-rbxc/xTo/  ciyav) — and  by  Ammianus  Marcel- 
linus  (abimdantes  inanibus  verbis  insauumque  loquentes  ct  ferum,  magnidici 
et  graves  ac  tctri.  minaces  juxta  in  adversis  rebus  ac  prosperis,  callidi,  su- 
perbi).  The  same  idea  is  expressed  by  the  Septuagint  version  {^aioovng 
u/ia  y.a)  l^^i^ovTsg. 

■1,  The  Prophet,  in  his  own  person,  now  describes  the  enemies  of  Baby- 
lon, who  had  just  been  summoned,  as  actually  on  their  way.  He  hears  a  ' 
confused  noise,  which  he  soon  finds  to  be  that  of  confederated  nations 
forming  the  army  of  Jehovah  against  Babylon.  The  voice  (or  sound)  of  a 
multitude  in  the  mountains  !  the  likeness  of  much  people  !  the  sound  of  a 
tumult  of  kingdoms  of  nations  gathered  (or  gathering  themselves) !  Jehovah 
of  hosts  mustering  (/.  e.  inspecting  and  numbering)  a  host  of  battle  {i.  e.  a 
militaiy  host)  !  The  absence  of  verbs  adds  greatly  to  the  vividness  of  the 
description.  The  sentence  really  consists  of  a  series  of  exclamations, 
describing  the  impressions  made  successively  upon  the  senses  of  an  eye 
and  ear  witness.  The  expression  is  weakened  by  supplying  is  heard 
(Junius),  or  there  is  (Cocceius).  Gesenius  and  Ewald  insert  hark  !  at  the 
beginning  of  the  sentence,  which  is  better,  though  unnecessary.  By  the 
mountains  some  suppose  Media  to  be  meant,  to  which  Henderson  adds 
Armenia  and  the  other  hilly  countries  from  which  Cyrus  drew  his  forces. 
This  supposes  the  movement  here  described  to  be  that  of  the  levy  or  con- 
scription. But  it  seems  more  natural  to  understand  it,  as  most  writers  do, 
of  the  actual  advance  of  the  invaders.  The  mountains  then  will  be  those 
dividing  Babylonia  from  IMedia  or  Persia. — The  sjTnbolical  interpretation  of 
mountains  as  denoting  states  and  kingdoms  (Musculus),  is  entirely  out  of 
place  hero.     niDT  is  commonly  explained  here  as  equivalent  to  as  or  like; 


Ver.  5.]  ISAIAH  XIII.  271 

but  J.  D.  Micbaelis  and  Roseumiiller  seem  to  take  it  in  its  proper  sense  of 
likeness  or  similar  appearance,  and  refer  to  the  indistinct  view  of  a  great 
multitude  approaching  from  a  distance.  The  reference  to  sound  before 
and  afterwards,  makes  the  reference  of  this  clause  to  the  sense  of  sight 
improbable. — The  rendering  of  I'iNJi'  ?1p  tumuJtuous  noise,  is  not  only  a 
gratuitous  departure  from  the  form  of  the  original,  but  a  weakening  of  the 
description.  The  object  presented  is  not  a  tumultuous  noise  merely,  but 
the  noise  of  an  actual  tumult. — Calvin,  Gesenius,  and  others,  separate 
hingdoms  fi'om  nations,  as  distinct  particulars.  The  construction  Jcingdoms 
of  nations,  which  is  retained  by  Ewald,  is  the  one  required  by  the  Maso- 
retic  accents,  and  affords  a  better  sense. — The  Niphal  participle  may  be 
taken  in  a  reflexive  sense,  in  which  case  the  description  would  refer  to  the 
original  assembling  of  the  troops.  There  is  no  necessity  however  for  de- 
parting from  the  ordinary  usage,  according  to  which  it  describes  the  nations 
as  already  assembled. — It  is  commonly  agreed  that  there  is  here  a  direct 
reference  to  the  mixture  of  nations  in  the  army  of  Cyrus.  Besides  the 
Persians  and  the  Medes,  Xenophon  speaks  of  the  Armenians,  and  Jere- 
miah adds  the  names  of  other  nations  (Jer.  1.  9,  li.  27).  Most  interpreters 
suppose  the  event  here  predicted  to  be  subsequent  in  date  to  the  over- 
throw of  Croesus,  while  Knobel  refers  it  to  the  first  attack  of  Cjtus  upon 
Babylonia,  recorded  in  the  thii'd  book  of  the  Cyropedia.  But  these  dis- 
tinctions seem  to  rest  upon  a  false  view  of  the  passage  as  a  description  of 
particular  marches,  battles,  &c.,  rather  than  a  generic  picture  of  the  whole 
series  of  events  which  ended  in  the  downfall  of  Babylon.  For  a  just  view 
of  the  principles  on  which  such  prophecies  should  be  explained,  wdth  par- 
ticular reference  to  that  before  us,  see  Stuart  on  the  Apocalypse,  vol.  ii. 
p.  143,  The  title  Jehovah  of  hostfi,  may  here  seem  to  be  used  unequivo- 
cally in  the  sense  of  God  of  tattles^  on  account  of  the  obvious  allusion  to 
the  word  host  following.  But  as  this  explanation  of  the  title  is  not  justified 
by  scriptural  usage  {vide  supra,  chap.  i.  9),  it  is  better  to  understand  the 
■words  as  meaning  that  the  Lord  of  the  hosts  of  heaven  is  now  mustering 
a  host  on  earth.  Lowth,  on  the  authority  of  a  single  manuscript,  reads 
T]12VbDl>  for  the  battle  or  for  battle.  But  the  last  word  appears  to  be  added 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  limiting  and  qualifying  that  before  it.  This  was 
the  more  necessary  as  the  same  word  had  been  just  used  in  another  sense. 
He  who  controls  the  hosts  of  heaven  is  now  engaged  in  mustering  a  host  of 
war,  i.  e.  an  army.  The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  construe  these  last  words 
with  the  following  verse — the  Lord  of  hosts  has  commanded  an  armed 
nation  to  come,  &c. — which  is  a  forced  and  ungrammatical  construction. — 
The  substitution  of  the  present  for  the  participle  in  the  English  Version 
(rniistereth)  and  most  others,  greatly  impairs  the  force  and  uniformity  of 
the  expression  by  converting  a  lively  exclamation  into  a  dispassionate 
assertion.     Hendewerk  carelessly  omits  the  last  clause  altogether. 

5.  Coming  from  a  distant  land  (literally,  a  land  of  distance),  from  the 
(visible  or  apparent)  end  of  the  heavens — Jehovah  and  the  mstrttments  (or 
■weapons)  of  his  lorath — to  lay  toaste  (or  destroy  the  whole  land  (of  Baby- 
lonia).— Junius  and  most  of  the  later  writers  construe  D*^<3  as  a  present 
{they  come,  &c.).  It  is  better  to  make  it  agree  with  ^<2^  as  a  collective, 
and  to  continue  the  construction  from  the  foregoing  verse,  as  above. — The 
end  of  heaven  is  of  course  regarded  by  Gesenius  as  a  proof  of  ignorance  in 
the  writer.  Others  more  reasonably  understand  it  as  a  strong  but  natural 
hyperbole.  The  best  explanation  is  that  given  by  J.  D.  Micbaelis  and 
Barnes,  who  suppose  the  Prophet  to  refer  to  the  horizon  or  bounding  line 


272  ISAIAH  XIII.  [Yer.  6. 

of  vision.  Ho  is  not  deliberately  stating  from  what  region  they  set  out, 
but  from  what  point  he  sees  them  actually  coming,  viz.  from  the  remotest 
point  in  sight.  This  view  of  the  expression,  not  as  a  geographical  descrip- 
tion, but  as  a  vivid  representation  of  appearances,  removes  the  necessity  of 
explaining  how  Media  or  Persia  could  be  called  a  distant  land  or  the  ex- 
tremity of  heaven.  Schmidius  evades  this  imaginary  difficulty  by  applying 
the  terras  to  the  distant  nations  from  which  Cyrus  drew  his  forces  ;  Cleri- 
cus  by  referring  distant  not  to  Babylonia  but  Judea,  and  supposing  the 
Prophet  to  be  governed  in  his  use  of  language  by  the  habitual  associations 
of  his  Jewish  readers.  Cocceius,  partly  for  this  very  reason,  understands 
the  whole  passage  as  a  threatening  against  Judah. — Je/iovnh  and  the 
tveapuns  of  his  xorath.  According  to  the  Michlol  Jophi,  and  is  here  put  for 
ivith,  and  some  translators  actually  make  the  substitution,  which  is  wholly 
unnecessary.  The  host  which  Jehovah  was  before  said  to  be  mustering  is 
now  represented  ns  consisting  of  himself  and  the  weapons  of  his  wrath. 
This  intimation  of  his  presence,  his  co-operation,  and  even  his  incorpora- 
tion, with  the  invading  host,  adds  greatly  to  the  force  of  the  threatening. 
The  Hebrew  word  Qv3  corresponds  to  our  implements  in  its  widest 
sense,  as  including  instruments  and  vessels.  It  has  here  the  active  sense 
of  weapons,  while  in  Rom.  ix.  22,  Paul  employs  a  corresponding  Greek 
phrase  in  the  passive  sense  of  vessels.  Weapons  of  luratli  are  the  weapons 
which  execute  it,  vessels  of  lorath  the  vessels  which  contain  it. — The  am- 
biguous phrase  |'15<n  73  is  explained  by  the  Septuagiat  as  meaning  the 
whole  world  (ciaffav  TTtv  olx-ouijAvriv),  and  this  interpretation  is  approved  by 
Umbreit,  on  the  gi'ound  that  Babylon  was  a  type  or  symbol  of  human 
opposition  to  divine  authority.  In  its  primary  import  it  no  doubt  denotes 
the  land  of  Babylonia  or  Chaldea.  Cocceius  alone  understands  the  land 
of  Israel  or  Judah  to  be  meant,  in  accordance  with  his  singular  hypothesis 
already  mentioned. 

6.  Howl  (ye  Babylonians,  with  distress  and  {ear),  for  the  day  of  Jehovah 
(his  appointed  time  of  judgment)  is  near.  Like  might  {i.  c.  a  mighty  stroke 
or  desolation) /rom  the  Almighty  it  shall  come. — Calvin  points  out  a  lusus 
vcrhorum  in  the  combination  of  *!!'(^  almighty,  and  '^^  desolation  or  destruc- 
tion, both  derived  from  "^1^^.  As  if  he  had  said,  you  shall  know  with  what 
good  reason  God  is  called  *"!•??*.  This  is  described  by  Calvin  as  a  concinna 
allusio  ad  etymolocjiam,  by  Barnes  as  a  "paronomasia  or  pun,  a  figure  of 
speech  quite  common  in  the  Scriptures."  Paronomasia  and  pun  are  not 
synonymous,  and  the  application  of  the  latter  tenn  in  this  case,  if  not  irreve- 
rent, is  inexact.  Gesenius  denies  that  it  is  even  a  paronomasia  in  the  proper 
sense.  He  also  takes  3  as  a  caph  veritalis — "like  a  destruction  from  the 
Almighty  (as  it  is)."  But  Hendewcrk  takes  it  in  its  proper  sense — a  destruc- 
tion as  complete  and  overwhelming  as  if\i  were  an  act  of  reckless  violence. 
Kimchi  explains  the  clause  to  mean,  as  a  destruction  (not  from  man,  but) 
from  a  mighty  one  who  cannot  be  resisted  or  avoided.  Vitringa  labours  to 
explain  and  justify  the  derivation  of  a  divine  name  from  a  root  of  evil  import 
like  "lll^  to  plunder  or  destroy.  But  this  etymological  difficulty  is  re- 
moved by  the  latter  lexicographers,  who  give  the  root  the  general  sense  of 
being  strong  or  mighty,  as  in  Arabic.  The  specific  sense  of  tempest  or  de- 
structive storm,  which  Gesenius  puts  upon  1t^  hero  and  in  Joel  i.  15,  is 
perfectly  gratuitous.  Jehovah's  days  are  well  defined  by  Cocceius  :  la 
generc  dies  Domini  dicuntur  divinittis  constitutae  oppoi-ltinitatcs  quibus 
judicium  suum  exercet.  [Vide  supra,  chap.  ii.  12).  This  day  is  said  to 
be  near,  not  absolutely  with  respect  to  the  date  of  the  prediction,  but  rela- 


Ver.  7,  8.]  ISAIAH  XIII.  273 

tively,  either  with  respect  to  the  perceptions  of  the  Prophet,  or  with  respect 
to  what  had  gone  before.  For  ages  Babylon  might  be  secure  ;  but  after 
the  premonitory  signs  just  mentioned  should  be  seen,  there  would  be  no 
delay.  The  words  of  the  verse  are  supposed  to  be  uttered  in  the  midst  of 
the  tumult  and  alarm  of  the  invasion. 

7.  Therefore  (because  of  this  sudden  and  irresistible  attack)  all  hands 
shall  sink  (fall  down,  be  slackened  or  relaxed),  and  every  heart  of  man  shall 
melt.  Clericus  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  etymology  of  5i'12N  as  denoting 
frailty  and  infirmity  (omne  aegrorum  mortalium  cor) ;  but  most  interpreters 
explain  the  phrase  as  simply  meaning  every  mortal  heart,  or  the  heart  of 
every  mortal.  Cocceius  understands  by  the  sinking  of  the  hands  the  loss 
of  active  power,  and  by  the  melting  of  the  heart,  the  fear  of  coming  evil. 
Junius  supposes  an  antithesis  between  the  hands  or  bod}'',  and  the  heart  or 
mind.  But  both  the  clauses,  in  their  strict  sense,  are  descriptive  of  bodily 
effects,  and  both  indicative  of  mental  states.  Each  of  the  figures  is  repeat- 
edl}'  used  elsewhere.  (See  Josh.  vii.  5,  Ps.  xxii.  13,  Jer.  1.  43,  Job.  iv.  3.) 
Ivnobel  quotes  from  Ovid  the  analogous  expression,  cecidere  illis  animique 
manusque. 

8.  And  they  (the  Babylonians)  shall  be  confounded — jmngs  and  throes 
shall  seize  (them) — like  the  travailing  (woman)  they  shall  lorithe — each  at 
his  neighbour,  they  shall  wonder — faces  of  flames  {^h^W  he)  their  faces. — 
The  Vulgate,  Peshito,  and  Lowth,  connect  the  fii'st  word  with  the  verse 
preceding,  which  is,  to  say  the  least,  unnecessary. — The  translation /ear  or 
trcmhle,  is  too  weak  for  vH^J,  which  includes  the  ideas  of  violent  agitation 
and  extreme  perplexity.  The  Septuagint  strangely  gives  to  Cl^i*  here  the 
sense  of  ambassadors  or  messengers  (vide  infra,  chap,  xviii.  2,  Ivii.  9), 
which  is  precluded  by  the  whole  connection,  and  especially  by  the  combina- 
tion with  D^73n.  Solomon  ben  Melech  explains  i  in  lUilN''  as  an  anomalous 
suffix  used  instead  of  D.  Lowth  as  usual  corrects  the  text  by  reading 
DlTns^,  on  the  alleged  authority  of  the  Septuagint,  Targum,  and  Peshito, 
which  supply  the  suffix.  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Knobel,  adopt  a 
construction  mentioned  by  Kimchi,  which  makes  pangs  and  throes  the  object 
not  the  subject  of  the  verb — they  shall  take  pangs  and  throes — as  we  speak 
of  a  house  taking  fire  or  a  person  taking  a  disease,  and  as  Livy  says  capere 
metum.  This  form  of  expression  occurs,  not  only  in  Arabic,  but  in  Job 
xviii.  20,  xxi.  6.  The  construction  is  also  recommended  by  its  rendering 
the  suffix  unnecessary,  and  by  its  giving  to  ptnX''  the  same  subject  with  the 
verbs  before  and  after  it.  The  objection  to  it,  strongly  urged  by  Hendewerk, 
is  that  the  construction,  even  in  Job,  is  Arabic,  not  Hebrew,  the  idiom  of 
the  latter  being  clear  from  other  eases  where  the  same  verb  and  nouns  are 
combined  (Isa.  xxi.  3,  Jer.  xiii.  21),  or  the  same  nouns  with  other  verbs 
(1  Sam.  iv.  19,  Isa.  Ixvi.  7,  Jer.  xxii.  23,  Dan.  x.  16,  Hos.  xiii.  13),  or 
other  nouns  and  verbs  of  kindred  meaning  (Exod.  xv.  14,  Isa.  xxxv.  10, 
Deut.  xxviii.  2),  but  in  all  without  exception  the  noun  is  the  subject,  not  the 
object,  of  the  verb.  The  construction  thus  proved  to  be  the  common  one, 
may  at  least  be  safely  retained  here,  the  rather  as  the  collocation  of  the 
words  is  evidently  in  its  favour.  The  sense  of  trembling  given  to  IvTl*  by 
several  of  the  recent  writers  is  too  weak.  The  best  translation  seems  to  be 
that  of  Henderson — they  shall  writhe — i.e.  with  pain.  The  expression 
wonder  at  each  other  occurs  once  in  historical  prose  (Gen.  xliii.  33).  It 
seems  here  to  denote  not  simply  consternation  and  dismay,  but  stupefaction 
at  each  other's  aspect  and  condition — q.  d.  each  man  at  his  fiend  shall 

VOL.  I.  s 


274  ISAIAH  Xlll.  i\s,R.  9. 

stand  aghast. — The  last  clause  is  referred  by  J.  H.'Micbaelis  to  the  Medes 
and  Persiaus,  aud  explained  as  a  description  of  their  violence  and  fierceness, 
in  which  sense  the  same  figures  arc  employed  in  Isaiah  Ixvi.  15,  and  Rev, 
ix.  17.  It  is  commonly  and  much  more  naturally  understood  as  a  continued 
description  of  the  terror  and  distress  of  the  Chaldeans.  Aben  Ezra  men- 
tions an  interpretation  of  D^SH?  as  the  proper  name  of  an  African  race  de- 
scended from  Mizraim  the  son  of  Ham  (Gen.  x.  13,  1  Chron.  i.  11),  and 
probably  the  same  with  the  Luhim  (2  Chron.  xvi.  8)  or  Libyans.  "  Their 
faces  shall  be  (like)  the  faces  of  Africans,"  i.e.  black  with  horror  and 
despair.  This  explanation  is  approved  by  Gataker  ;  but  all  other  writers 
seem  to  take  D^^n"?  as  the  plural  of  3n7  a  flame.  The  point  of  comparison, 
according  to  Kimchi,  is  redness,  here  referred  to  as  a  natural  symptom  of 
confusion  and  shame.  But  as  this  seems  inappropriate  in  the  case  before 
us,  Hitzig  and  Ivnobel  understand  the  aspect  indicated  to  be  one  of  paleness, 
as  produced  by  fear.  Calvin,  Gesenius,  and  many  others,  understand  the 
ylow  or  flush  produced  by  anguish  and  despair  to  be  intended.  For  the 
classical  usage  of  fire  and  flame  as  denoting  a  red  colour,  see  Gesenius's 
Thesam'us,  torn.  ii.  p.  743.  In  the  last  edition  of  his  Lexicon  by  Robinson, 
the  phrase  before  us  is  explained  to  mean  "  ruddy  and  burning  with  cacjer- 
ness,''  an  expression  applicable  only  to  the  conquerors.  Instead  oi  rarjer- 
ness,  the  Thesaurus  has  intermim  animi  a'stum. — Cocceius  refers  this,  as 
well  as  the  preceding  verses,  to  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  invasions  of 
the  Holy  Land.  He  also  makes  the  verbs  descriptive  presents,  in  which 
he  is  followed  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  the  later  Germans.  There  is,  how- 
ever, no  need  of  departing  from  the  strict  sense  of  the  future. 

9.  All  this  must  happen  and  at  a  set  time — for  behold  the  day  of 
Jehovah  cometh — terrible — and  u-rath  and  heat  of  anger — to  place  (or 
make)  the  land  a  tcaste — and  its  sinners  he  (or  it,  the  day)  vill  destroy 
from  it  (or  out  of  it).  According  to  Cocceius,  the  mention  of  Jehovah 
throughout  this  passage,  sometimes  in  the  first  person,  sometimes  in  the 
third,  has  reference  to  the  plm-ality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead. — He  also 
renders  """IT^X  as  an  abstract  noun  (immanitas),  in  which  he  is  follow-ed  by 
Yitringa,  while  Ewald  gives  it  an  adverbial  sense  (grausamcr  Ai-t),  but  most 
interpreters  regard  it  as  an  adjective  synonymous  with  ")T3t<.  The  applica- 
tion of  this  term  to  God,  or  to  his  judgments,  seems  to  have  perplexed  in- 
terpreters. Crudelem  diem  vocat  (says  Jerome)  nan  merito  sui  scd  pnpuli. 
Nan  est  enim  crudelis  qui  crudeles  jugidat,  sed  quod  crudclis  patienlibus 
esse  videatur.  Nam  et  lutro  susjiensus  patihdo  crudelem  judicem  p^dat. 
"  The  word  (says  Barnes)  stands  opposed  here  to  mercy,  and  means  that 
God  would  not  spare  them."  It  is  dubious,  however,  whether  the  word  in 
any  case  exactly  corresponds  to  the  crudelis  of  the  Vulgate  or  the  English 
cruel.  The  essential  idea  is  rather  that  of  vehemence,  destructiveness,  &c. 
It  is  rendered  accordingly  in  various  forms,  without  any  implication  of  a  moral 
tind,  by  the  Scptuagint  (dwaros),  Lowth  (inexorable),  Gesenius  (furchtbar), 
and  others. — The  following  words,  as  well  as  ^"iTSN,  are  construed  by  Coc- 
ceius as  in  apposition  with  Hin"*  DV — the  day  itself  being  described  as  cruelty, 
WTath,  kc.  Gesenius,  in  his  Commentary,  repeats  D1*  fearftd,  and  (a  day 
of)  wrath,  <tc.  In  his  translation  he  supplies  another  word— full  of  anger, 
&c.  Ewald  and  others  supply  a  preposition — with  tvrath,  kc. — Another 
possible  construction  would  be  to  suppose  a  change  of  subject — "  The  day 
of  Jehovah  is  coming  and  (so  is)  his  wrath,"  &c.  In  that  case,  Hin*  is  of 
course  the  subject  of  n^Ot^V  Upon  the  other  supposition  it  may  agree  with 
fiV,  but  without  a  change  of  meaning.     The  most  vigorous  though  not  the 


Tee.  10.]  ISAIAH  XIIL  275 

most  exact  translation  of  these  epithets  is  Luther's  (g^-ausam,  grhnmig, 
zor7iig).  Most  interpreters,  from  Jarchi  downwards,  understand  pNH  to 
be  Babylonia  ;  but  the  Septuagint  makes  it  mean  the  earth  or  world  (o/xou 
Ithriv)  as  in  ver.  5.  This  explanation  is  revived  by  the  three  latest  writers 
whom  I  have  consulted,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  Knobcl,  the  last  of  whom 
understands  the  term  as  an  allusion  to  the  universal  sway  of  the  Babylonian 
empire. — The  moral  causes  of  the  ruin  threatened  are  significantly  intimated 
by  the  Prophet's  calling  the  people  of  the  earth  or  land  its  sinners.  As  the 
national  oflences  here  referred  to,  Vitringa  enumerates  pride  (v.  xi.  14,  11 ; 
xlvii.  7,  8),  idolatry  (Jer.  1.  38),  tyranny  in  general  (xiv.  12,  17),  and  op- 
pression of  God's  people  in  particular  (xlvii.  G). — In  the  laying  of  the  land 
waste,  Junius  supposes  a  particular  allusion  to  the  submerging  of  the  Baby- 
Ionian  plains,  by  the  diversion  of  the  waters  of  Euphrates. 

10.  The  day  of  Jehovah  is  now  described  as  one  of  preternatural  and 
awful  darkness,  in  which  the  very  sources  of  light  shall  be  obscured.  This 
natm-al  and  striking  figure  for  sudden  and  disastrous  change  is  of  frequent 
occurrence  in  Scripture  (see  Isa.  xxiv.  23,  xxxiv,  4  ;  Ezek.  xxxii.  7,  8  ; 
Joel  ii.  10,  iii.  15  ;  Amos  viii.  9;  Mat.  xxiv.  29).  Well  may  it  be  called 
a  day  of  wrath  and  teiTor — for  the  stars  of  the  heavens  and  their  signs  (or 
constellations)  shall  not  shed  their  light — the  sun  is  darkened  in  his  going 
forth — and  the  moon  shall  not  cause  its  light  to  shine. — It  can  only  be  from 
misapprehension  of  the  connection  between  this  verse  and  the  ninth,  that 
Lowth  translates  "•?  yea ! — According  to  Hitzig  and  Knobel,  the  darkening 
of  the  stars  is  mentioned  first,  because  the  Hebrews  reckoned  the  day  from 
sunset. — Vitringa  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  understand  the  image  here  presented 
to  be  that  of  a  terrific  storm,  veiling  the  heavens,  and  concealing  its  lumi- 
naries. But  grand  as  this  conception  is,  it  falls  short  of  the  Prophet's  vivid 
description,  which  is  not  that  of  transient  obscuration  but  of  sudden  and 
total  extinction. — The  abrupt  change  from  the  future  to  the  preterite  and 
back  again,  has  been  retained  in  the  translation,  although  most  modem  ver- 
sions render  all  the  verbs  as  presents.  From  sim\)\j  foretelling  the  extinc- 
tion of  the  stars,  the  Prophet  suddenly  describes  that  of  the  sun  as  if  he  saw 
it,  and  then  adds  that  of  the  moon  as  a  necessaiy  consequence. — Clericus 
explains  D^'?''D3  as  a  synonyme  of  ^D3  in  the  sense  of  hope  or  confidence, 
and  refers  the  sufiix  to  the  Babylonians,  who  were  notoriously  addicted  to 
astrology  and  even  to  astrolatry.  The  stars  of  heaven  which  are  (literally 
and  or  even)  their  confidence,  &c.  This  ingenious  exposition  seems  to  have 
commended  itself  to  no  other  writer,  though  Malvenda  does  likewise  sup- 
pose a  special  allusion  to  the  astrological  belief  and  practice  of  the  Baby- 
lonians. Theodotion  and  Aquila  retain  the  Hebrew  word  (p/sc/Xsl/i). 
Jerome  gives  the  vague  sense  splendour,  the  Peshito  that  of  strength  or  host. 
Calvin  and  others  render  it  by  sidera.  Vitringa  makes  it  mean  the  planets, 
Junius  the  constellations,  as  distinguished  from  the  stars.  Rabbinical  and 
other  writers  make  "?"'DD  the  name  of  a  particular  star,  but  difi'er  as  to  its 
identity.  The  latest  writers  have  gone  back  to  the  version  of  the  Septua- 
gint (6  'Ho/wv)  and  Luther  (sein  Orion),  except  that  they  restore  the  plural 
foi-m  of  the  original. — The  proofs  of  the  identity  of  Nimrod  and  Orion,  as 
hunters  transferred  to  the  heavens,  in  the  oriental  and  classical  mythology,' 
have  been  arrayed,  with  a  minuteness  of  detail  and  a  profusion  of  learning:: 
out  of  all  proportion  to  the  exegetical  importance  of  the  subject,  by  J.  D. 
MichaeUs,  in  his  Supplement  ad  lexx.  Hebr.  p.  1319  seq. — Gesenius  on  the. 
passage  now  before  us — and  Lee  on  Job.  ix.  9.  It  is  commonly  agreed  that: 
the  word  which  occui's  elsewhere  only  in  the  singular  (Job  ix.  9,  xxxviii.  31 ;; 


270  ISAIAH  XIII .  [Ver.  11,  12. 

Amos  V.  8),  is  here  used  in  the  plural  to  give  it  a  generic  sense — Oiions, 
i.  e.  Orion  and  other  brilliant  constellations.  To  express  this  idea  most  of 
the  recent  versions  exchange  the  proper  name  for  an  appellative.  The  word 
Bilder,  used  by  the  latest  German  writers,  seems  to  have  reference  to  the 
simis  of  the  Zodiac.  Ewald  alone  retains  the  primary  meaning  (seine 
Orionen).  In  this,  as  in  many  other  cases,  the  spirit  of  the  passage  is  no- 
where more  felicitously  given  than  in  Luther's  energetic  paraphrase.  Vie 
Stcine  am  Himmel  unci  seine  Orion  scheinea  nicht  lielle  ;  die  Sonne  gehel 
Jinster  auf,  xtnd  der  Mond  scheinet  dunlcel. 

11.  The  Prophet,  according  to  his  custom  (ride  supra,  chap.  i.  22,  v.  7, 
xi.  9),  now  resolves  his  figures  into  literal  expressions,  shewing  that  the 
natural  convulsions  jnst  predicted  arc  to  be  understood  as  metaphorical  de- 
scriptions of  the  divine  judgments.  And  I  nill  visit  npon  the  uorld  (its) 
iviclicdness  (?.  e.  manifest  my  presence  for  the  purpose  of  punishing  it)— and 
upon  the  nicked  their  iniquity — and  I  iiilt  cause  to  cease  the  arrogance  of 
presumptuous  sinners — and  the  pride  of  tyrants  (or  oppressors)  I  will  humble. 
The  primary  meaning  of  73^  is  retained  in  the  versions  of  Junius  (orbis 
habitiibihs)  and  Cocceius  (frugiferam  terram),  who  regards  the  use  of  this 
word  as  a  proof  that  the  prophecy  relates  to  Israel  (populus  per  verbum 
Dei  cultus).  It  is  no  doubt  a  poetical  equivalent  to  }*>^.>  and  is  here  ap- 
plied to  the  Babylonian  empire,  as  embracing  most  of  the  known  world. 
Thus  the  Roman  empire,  as  Lowth  shews,  was  called  wiirersus  orbis  Eoma- 
nus,  and  Minos,  in  Ovid,  speaks  of  Crete  as  mens  orbis.  Hitzig  makes  ?3f) 
nV?  mean  the  evil  uorld,  but  the  parallel  expression  which  immediately  fol- 
lows, and  the  analogy  of  Jer.  xxiii.  2,  Exod.  xx.  5,  are  decisive  in  favour 
of  the  usual  construction.— The  Septuagint  makes  D-vny  synonymous  with 
DnT  (i/T£o?;fai'wv),  and  the  Vulgate  makes  it  simply  mean  the  powerful 
(fortium)t  But  active  violence  is  an  essential  part  of  the  meaning.  The 
English  Version  and  some  others  adopt  the  sense  of  terrible  (from  V^V  to 
terrify)  ;  but  the  latest  interpreters  prefer  the  meaning  given  by  Calvin, 
Clericus,  and  others  (tyrannorum). 

,  12.  To  the  general  description  in  the  foregoing  verse  he  now  adds  a  more 
specific  threatening  of  extensive  slaughter,  and  a  consequent  diminution  of 
the  population,  expressed  by  a  strong  comparison.  /  ivill  make  man  more 
scarce  (or  rare)  than  pure  gold,  and  a  human  being  than  the  ore  of  Ophir. — 
K'lJN  and  Q"li<  cannot  here  denote  a  difi'erence  of  rank,  as  t;"'K  and  ms 
sometimes  do,  because  neither  of  them  is  elsewhere  used  in  the  distinctive 
sense  of  vir  or  dvn§.  They  are  really  poetical  equivalents,  like  77ian  and 
mortal  or  human  being,  which  last  expression  is  employed  by  Henderson. 
a  is  regarded  as  a  proper  name  by  Bochart,  who  apphes  it  to  the  Coro- 
mandel  coast,  and  by  Huet,  who  supposes  it  to  be  a  contraction  of  TD-1X, 
and  this  a  variation  of  1"'S1'<.  GriH  speaks  of  some  as  identifying  TS  with 
Fez  and  1*S^X  with  Peru.  tS  and  OriD  are  either  poetical  synon}-mes  of 
anr,  or  emphatic  expressions  for  the  purest,  finest,  and  most  solid  gold. 
The  Septuagint  version  of  the  last  words  is  o  Xido;  6  tv  -2.oufi§,  instead  of 
which  the  Arabic  translation  founded  on  it  has  the  stone  which  {comes)  from 
India.  The  disputed  question  as  to  the  locality  of  Ophir,  although  not 
without  historical  and  archaeological  importance,  can  have  no  ell'ect  upon  the 
meaning  of  this  passage.  Whether  the  place  meant  be  Ceylon,  or  some  part 
of  continental  India,  or  of  Arabia,  or  of  Africa,  it  is  here  named  simply  as  an 
Eldorado,  as  a  place  where  gold  abounded,  either  as  a  native  product  or  an 
article  of  commerce,  from  which  it  was  brought,  and  with  which  it  was  associ- 
ated in  the  mind  of  every  Hebrew  reader.    For  the  various  opinions  and  the 


Ver.  13,  ll.j  ISAIAH  XII I.  217 

arguments  by  wbicli  they  are  supported,  seethe  geogi*aphical  Works  of  Bochart 
and  Rosenmiiller,  Winer's  Realworterbuch,  Gesenius's  Thesaurus,  and  Hen- 
derson's note  upon  the  verse  before  us. — Instead  of  making  rare  or  scarce, 
the  meaning  put  upon  "i^p15<  by  Jerome  and  by  most  modern  writers,  some 
retain  the  original  and  strict  sense  of  making  dear  or  costly,  with  allusion 
to  the  impossibility  of  ransoming  the  Babylonians  from  the  Medes  and  Per- 
sians, This  interpretation,  which  Henderson  ascribes  to  Grotius,  was 
given  long  before  by  Calvin,  and  is  indeed  as  old  as  Kimchi.  Barnes,  and 
some  older  m-iters  understand  the  words  as  expressive  of  the  difficulty  with 
which  defenders  could  be  found  for  the  city.  Henderson  speaks  of  some 
as  having  applied  the  verse,  in  an  individual  sense,  to  Cyrus  and  to  the 
Messiah.  The  latter  application  is  of  Jewish  origin,  and  found  in  the  book 
Zohar.  Jarchi  explains  the  verse  as  having  reference  to  the  honour  put 
upon  the  prophet  Daniel  as  the  decipherer  of  the  writing  on  the  wall.  The 
Targum  makes  it  a  promise  of  protection  to  the  godly  and  believing  Jews 
in  Babylon.  Cocceius,  while  he  gives  the  words  the  sense  now  usually  put 
upon  them,  as  denoting  paucity  of  men  in  consequence  of  slaughter,  still 
refers  them  to  the  small  number  of  Jews  who  were  carried  into  exile. — From 
the  similar  forms  "i''p1^  and  "i"'S14<  at  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  sen- 
tence, Gesenius  infers  that  a  paronomasia  was  intended  by  the  writer, 
which,  as  usual,  he  imitates,  with  very  indifferent  success,  by  beginning  his 
translation  with  seltener  and  ending  it  with  seltene  Schdtze.  Henderson, 
with  great  probabihty,  denies  that  the  writer  intended  any  assonance  at  all. 
On  the  modern  theory  of  perfect  parallelisms,  it  would  be  easy  to  construct 
an  argument  in  favour  of  understanding  "i^SIN  as  a  verb,  and  thereby  ren- 
dering the  clauses  uniform.  Such  a  conclusion,  like  many  drawn  from 
similar  premises  in  other  cases,  would  of  com-se  be  worthless. 

13.  The  figurative  form  of  speech  is  here  resumed,  and  what  was  before 
expressed  by  the  obscuration  of  the  heavenly  bodies  is  now  denoted  by  a 
general  commotion  of  the  frame  of  nature.  Therefore  I  will  make  the 
heavens  tremble,  and  the  earth  shall  shake  (or  be  shaken)  out  of  its  place  in 
the  tvrath  of  Jehovah  of  hosts  and  in  the  day  of  the  heat  {or  fierceness)  of  his 
amjer.  Henderson  translates  i?"'?^  became,  which  is  not  only  inconsistent 
with  the  usage  of  the  words,  but  wholly  unnecessary.  Therefore  may  either 
mean  because  of  the  wickedness  mentioned  in  ver.  11,  or  for  the  purpose  of 
producing  the  eifect  described  in  ver.  12.  In  the  last  clause  some  give  3 
the  sense  of  hij  or  on  account  of  in  both  members.  Others  explain  the  first 
3  thus,  but  take  the  other  in  its  proper  sense  of  in.  It  is  highly  improb- 
able, however,  that  the  particle  is  here  used  in  two  difierent  senses,  and  the 
best  construction,  therefore,  is  the  one  which  lets  the  second  3  determine 
the  meaning  of  the  first — in  the  ivrath,  i.  e.  daring  (or  in  the  time  of)  the 
wrath. 

14.  And  it  shall  he  (or  come  to  pass,  that)  like  a  roe  (or  antelope)  chased 
(or  driven  by  the  hunters)  and  like  sheep  with  none  to  gather  them  (literally, 
like  sheep,  and  there  is  no  one  gathering) — each  to  his  peojyle,  they  shall  turn 
— and  each  to  his  country  they  shall  Jiee. — The  English  Version  seems  to 
make  the  earth  the  subject  of  Hjn,  with  which,  however,  it  does  not  agree 
in  gender.  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  make  the  verb  indefinite,  one  shall  be. 
Aben  Ezra  and  Jarchi  supply  Babylon  or  the  Babylonians.  The  best  con- 
struction is  that  given  by  De  Wette,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  who  take  ^l^  in 
its  common  idiomatic  sense  of  coming  to  pass,  happening.  I{imchi  refers 
the  verse  to  the  foreign  residents  in  Babylon  (iD/^  '7;;0  DI^n?  i333) — what 
Jeremiah  calls  the  mingled  people  (1.  37),  and  iEschylus  ihQ jtaiiiiixroi 


278  ISAIAH  XIII.  [Veb.  15,  16. 

ly>.o)i  of  BabA-lon.  Calvin  supposes  an  allusion,  not  to  foreign  residents, 
but  mercenary  troops  or  allies.  Clericus  applies  the  last  clause  to  these 
strangers,  and  the  first  to  the  Babylonians  themselves,  which  is  needless 
and  arbitrary.  The  ''?V,  according  to  Bochart  and  Gesenius,  is  a  generic 
term  including  all  varieties  of  roes  and  antelopes.  The  points  of  com- 
■parison  are  their  timidity  and  fleetness.  The  figure  of  scattered  sheep, 
without  a  gatherer  or  shepherd,  is  a  common  one  in  Scripture.  Junius 
connects  this  verse  with  the  twelfth,  and  throws  the  thirteenth  into  a  paren- 
thesis, a  construction  complex  in  itself,  and  solittle  in  accordance  with  the 
usage  of  the  language,  that  nothing  short  of  exegetical  necessity  can  warrant 
its  adoption. 

15.  The  flight  of  the  strangers  from  Babylon  is  not  without  reason,  for 
every  one  found  (there)   shall  be  stabbed  {or  thrust  through),  and  every  one 
joined  (or  joining  himself  to  the  Babylonians)  shall  fall  by  the  sword.     All 
interpreters  agi'ee  that  a  general  massacre  is  here  described,  although  they 
difler  as  to  the  pi'ecise  sense  and  connection  of  the  clauses.     Some  suppose 
a  climax.     Thus  Junius  explains  the  verse  to  mean  that  not  only  the  robust 
but  the  decrepit  (i^spj  from  HDD  to  consume)  should  be  slain,  and  the 
same  interpretation  is  mentioned  by  Kimchi.     Hitzig  takes  the  sense  to  be 
that  every  one,  even  he  who  joins  himself  (/.  e.  goes  over  to  the  enemy), 
shall  perish  ;  they  will  give  no  quarter.     Others  suppose  an  antithesis, 
though  not  a  climax.  Gesenius,  in  the  earher  editions  of  his  Lexicon,  ex- 
plains the  verse  as  meaning  that  he  who  is  found  in  the  street,  and  he  who 
withdraws  himself  into  the  house,  shall  perish  alike.     Lowth  makes  the 
antithesis  between  one  found  alone  and  one  joined  with  others.     Urabreifc 
supposes  an  antithesis  not  only  between  N^'O^and  HDDJ,  but  also  between  Ip*!^ 
and  3"in3  'PID'' — the  one  clause  referring  to  the  first  attack  with  spears,  the 
other  to  the  closer  fight  with  swords  hand  to  hand.    J.  D.  Michaelis  changes 
the  points,  so  as  to  make  the  contrast  between  him  who  remains  and  him 
who  Jlees,  and  Henderson  extracts  the  same  sense  from  the  common  text, 
avowedly  upon  the  ground  that  ^203  must  denote  the  opposite  of  5<^'^3.    But 
even  the  most  strenuous  adherent  of  the  theory  of  perfect  parallelisms  must 
admit  that  they  are  frequently  s}'nonymous,  and  not  invariably  antithetical. 
In  this  case  there  is  no  more  need  of  making  the  participles  opposite  iu 
meaning  than  the  nouns  and  verbs.     And  as  all  except  Umbreit  (and  per- 
haps Kjiobel)  seem  agreed  that  to  be  thrust  through,  and  to  fall  by  the 
sword,  are  one  and  the  same  thing,  there  is  every  probability  that  both  the 
clauses  have  respect  to  the  same  class  of  persons.     Upon  this  most  natural 
and  simple  supposition,  we  may  either  suppose  KV03  and  nSDJ  to  denote 
the  person  found  and  the  person  cauyht,  as  Ewald  and  Gesenius  do,  or 
retain  the  old  interpretations   found  in  Kimchi,  which  connects  the  verse 
directly  with  the  one  before  it,  and  applies  both  clauses  to  the  foreigners  in 
Babylon,  every  one  of  whom  still  found  there,  and  still  joined  with  the 
besieged,  should  be  surely  put  to  death. 

16.  The  horrors  of  the  conquest  shall  extend  not  only  to  the  men,  but 
to  their  wives  and  children.  And  their  children  shall  be  dashed  to  pieces 
before  their  eyes,  their  houses  shall  be  plundered  and  their  xoives  ravished. 
The  same  thing  is  threatened  against  Babylon  in  Ps.cxxxvii.  9,  in  retaliation 
for  the  barbarities  practised  in  Jerusalem  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  17,  Lam.  v.  11). 
The  horror  of  the  threatening  is  enhanced  by  the  addition  of  before  their 
eyes.  (Compare  chap.  i.  7,  andDeut.  xxviii.  31,  32.)  Hitzig  coolly  alleges 
that  the  last  clause  of  this  verse  is  copied  from  Zech.  xiv.  2,  to  which 
Ivnobel  adds,  that  the  spoiling  of  the  houses  is  here  out  of  place. — For  the 


Yer.  17,  18.J  ISAIAir  XIII.  279 

textual  reading  n3'?JL**n  the  Keri,  here  and  elsewhere,  substitutes  nj^SviTl  as 
a  euphemistic  emendation. 

17.  The  Prophet  now,  for  the  first  time,  names  the  chosen  instruments 
of  Babylon's  destruction.  Behold  I  {am)  stirrinfj  up  against  them  Madai 
(Media  or  the  Medes)  who  will  not  regard  silver  and  {as  for)  gold,  they 
will  not  take  pleasure  in  it  (or  desire  it).  Here,  as  in  Jer.  li.  11,  28,  the 
Medes  alone  are  mentioned,  as  the  more  numerous  and  hitherto  more 
powerful  nation,  to  which  the  Persians  had  long  been  subject,  and  were 
still  auxiliary.  Or  the  name  may  be  understood  as  comprehending  both, 
which  Vitringa  has  clearly  shewn  to  be  the  usage  of  the  classical  historians, 
by  citations  from  Herodotus,  Thucydides,  and  Plutarch.  Indeed,  all  the 
names  of  the  great  oriental  powers  are  used,  with  more  or  less  latitude  and 
Hcence,  by  the  ancient  writers,  sacred  and  profane.  As  the  Medes  did  not 
become  an  independent  monarchy  till  after  the  date  of  this  prediction,  it 
aflbrds  a  strildng  instance  of  prophetic  foresight,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Keith, 
Barnes,  and  Henderson,  have  clearly  shewn.  It  is  chiefly  to  evade  such 
proofs  of  inspiration  that  the  modern  Germans  assign  these  chapters  to  a 
later  date. — ""lip  is  properly  the  name  of  the  third  son  of  Japhet  from  whom 
the  nation  was  descended.  At  the  date  of  this  prediction,  they  foimed  a 
part  of  the  Assyi-ian  empire,  but  revolted  at  the  time  of  the  Assyrian 
invasion  of  Syria  and  Israel.  Then'  first  king  Dejoces  was  elected  about 
700  years  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  His  son  Phraortes  conquered  Persia, 
and  the  united  Medes  and  Persians,  with  the  aid  of  the  Babylonians, 
subdued  Assyria  under  the  conduct  of  Cyaxares  I.  The  conquest  of 
Babylon  was  eflected  in  the  reign  of  Cyaxares  II.  by  the  Median  army, 
with  an  auxiliary  force  of  thirty  thousand  Persians,  under  the  command 
of  Cyrus,  the  king's  nephew.  In  the  last  clause  of  the  verse,  Hitzig 
and  Knobel  understand  the  Medes  to  be  described  as  so  uncivilised  as  not 
to  know  the  value  of  money.  Others  suppose  contempt  of  money  to 
be  mentioned  as  an  honourable  trait  in  the  national  character,  and 
Yitringa  has  pointed  out  a  very  striking  coincidence  between  this  clause 
and  the  speech  which  Xenophon  ascribes  to  Cyrus.  "Ai'Sgss  Mrjdoi,  -/.ai 
<!ra.v-sg  o/  craeo'i/rfj,  Jyw  \j[xai  oida  Ga^ojg,  oti  ovn  ^^ri/jLaruv  dso/Msaoi  6vv  i/jloI 
eS.'/j'kdiTi  %.  T.  X.  The  most  natural  interpretation  is,  however,  that  the 
thirst  of  blood  would  supersede  the  thii'st  of  gold  in  the  conquerors  of 
Babylon,  so  that  no  one  would  be  able  to  secure  his  life  by  ransom.  Even 
Cocceius  admits  that  this  verse  relates  to  the  conquest  of  Babylon,  but 
only,  as  he  thinks,  by  a  sudden  change  of  subject,  or  at  least  a  transition 
from  God's  dealings  with  his  people  to  his  dealings  with  their  enemies. 

18.  And  hows  shall  dash  hoya  in  pieces,  and  the  fruit  of  the  iromb  they 
shall  not  pity  ;  on  children  their  eye  shall  not  have  mercy. — Augusti  need- 
lessly continues  the  construction  from  the  foregoing  verse — "  they  shall  not 
delight  in  gold,  but  in  bows  which,"  &c.  The  Septuagint  has  the  hows  of 
the  young  men  {-o^iv/Mara  vsavis-Kuv)  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  form 
of  the  original.  The  Yulgate,  Luther,  and  Calvin,  "  with  their  bows  they 
shall  dash  in  pieces."  But  the  feminine  form  HJ^'i^'iJ^  must  agi'ee  with 
riinti'p,  as  Aben  Ezra  has  observed.  Clericus  and  Knobel  think  that  hows 
are  here  put  for  lowmcn,  which  is  a  forced  construction  and  unnecessary. 
Hendewerk  supposes  the  bow  to  be  mentioned,  as  in  many  other  cases,  as 
one  of  the  most  common  and  important  weapons.  Other  interpreters  appear 
to  be  agreed  that  there  is  special  allusion  to  the  large  bows  and  skilful 
archery  of  the  ancient  Persians,  as  described  by  Herodotus,  Xenophon,  and 
Ammianus  Marcellinus.     Kimchi's  extravagant  idea  that  the  Medes  are  here 


280  ISAIAH  XIII.  ,Vkr.  19. 

described  as  shooting  children  from  their  bows  instead  of  arrows,  is  strangely 
copied  by  some  later  writers.  There  is  more  probability  in  the  opinion, 
that  they  are  represented  as  employing  their  large  massive  bows  instead  of 
clubs.  There  is  no  serious  objection,  however,  to  the  common  supposition, 
that  the  effect  described  is  that  of  arrows,  or  of  bows  used  in  the  ordinary 
manner.  The  strong  term  claHh  in  pieces  is  employed  instead  of  one  more 
strictly  appropriate,  with  evident  allusion  to  its  use  in  ver.  16.  There  is  no 
need  of  gi^^ng  D^IV^  the  sense  of  young  mm.  It  rather  denotes  children  of 
both  sexes,  as  Q*J3  does  when  absolutely  used.  Hendewerk  and  some  older 
writers  understand  by  the  fruit  of  the  womb  the  unborn  child  (see  Hosea 
xiv.  1;  Amos  i.  13;  2  Kings  viii.  12,  15,  IG).  Gesenius  and  others  make 
it  simply  equivalent  to  children,  as  in  Gen.  xxx.  2 ;  Dcut  vii.  13 ;  Lam.  ii.  20. 
The  cruelty  of  the  Modes  seems  to  have  been  proverbial,  in  the  ancient 
world.  Diodorus  Siculus  makes  one  of  his  characters  ask,  "  What  destroyed 
the  empire  of  the  Medes  ?  '  Their  cruelty  to  those  beneath  them.'  " 
Compassion  is  ascribed  to  the  eye,  says  Knobel,  because  it  is  expressed  in 
the  looks.  Kimchi  observes  that  this  is  the  only  case  in  which  the  future 
of  D-in  has  u  instead  of  n. 

19.  From  the  very  height  of  splendour  and  renovra,  Babylon  shall  be 
reduced  not  only  to  subjection  but  to  annihilation.  Ajid  Babylon,  the 
beauty  (or  glory)  of  kingdoms,  the  ornament,  the  pride  of  the  Chaldees, 
shall  he  like  God's  overthroiving  Sodom  and  Gomorrah — i.  e.  shall  be 
totally  destroyed  in  execution  of  a  special  divine  judgment.  According  to 
Kimchi,  ''3V  means  delight  {Y^^},  and  ri137DO  ''3V  that  in  which  the  nations 
delighted.  It  is  now  agreed,  however,  that  its  meaning,  as  determined  both 
by  etymology  and  usage,  is  beauty.  The  same  Hebrew  word  is  applied  as  a 
distinctive  name  to  a  class  of  animals,  remarkable  for  grace  of  form  and 
motion.  {Vide  supra  ver.  14).  The  beauty  of  kingdoms  is  by  most  writers 
understood  comparatively  as  denoting  the  most  beautiful  of  kingdoms,  either 
in  the  proper  sense,  or  in  that  of  royal  cities  (see  1  Sam.  xxvii.  5).  But 
Knobel  understands  the  words  more  strictly  as  denoting  the  ornament  of  an 
empire  which  included  various  tributary  kingdoms.  This  agrees  well  vfith 
the  next  clause,  which  describes  the  city  as  the  ornament  and  pride  of  the 
Chaldees.  The  origin  of  this  name,  and  of  the  people  whom  it  designates, 
is  doubtful  and  disputed.  But  whether  the  Chaldees  were  of  Semitic  origin 
or  not,  and  whether  they  were  the  indigenous  inhabitants  of  Babylonia  or  a 
foreign  race  imported  from  Armenia  and  the  neighbouring  countries,  it  is 
plain  that  the  word  here  denotes  the  nation  of  which  Babylon  was  the 
capital.  For  a  statement  of  the  archaeological  question,  see  Geseuius's 
Thesaurus,  torn.  ii.  p.  719 — Winer's  llealworterbuch,  vol.  i.  p.  253 — and 
Henderson's  note  on  Isaiah  xxiii.  13.  By  most  interpreters  pi<J  n"lN2n  arc 
construed  together  as  denoting  ornament  of  pride,  i.  e.  proud  ornament. 
The  same  sense,  with  a  slight  modification,  is  expressed  in  the  Vulgate 
(inclyta  superbia),  and  by  Luther  (herrliche  Pracht).  Equally  simple,  and 
perhaps  more  consistent  with  the  Masorctic  interpunctiou,  is  the  separate 
construction  of  the  words  by  Junius  and  Tremellius  (ornatus  excellentiaque), 
still  better  expressed,  without  supplying  and,  by  the  Dutch  Version  (de 
heerlickheyt,  de  hoovaerdigheyt) — and  in  English  by  Barnes  (the  ornament, 
the  pride). — In  the  last  clause,  the  verbal  noun  riSSHD  is  construed  with 
the  subject  in  the  genitive  and  the  object  in  the  accusative  (Geseu.  Lehrg. 
p.  688).  It^  has  been  variously  paraphrased — as  when  Gcd  ovcrth;uw 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah — like  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  irhich  God  overthrew — 
like  the  overthrow  uith  which  God  overthrew  Sodom  and  Gomorrah — like 


Ver.  20.]  ISAIAR  XIII.  281 

the  overthrow  of  God  with  which  he  overthrew  Sodom  and  Gomorrah — but 
the  exact  sense  of  the  Hebrew  words  is  that  already  given — Uke  God's  over- 
throwing Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  This  is  a  common  formula  in  Scripture 
for  complete  destruction,  viewed  as  a  special  punishment  of  sin.  {Vide 
supra,  chap.  i.  7,  9).  The  allegation  of  the  Seder  01am,  as  cited  both  by 
Jarchi  and  Kimchi,  that  Babylon  was  suddenly  destroyed  by  fire  from 
heaven  in  the  second  year  of  Darius,  is  a  Jewish  figment  designed  to  recon- 
cile the  prophecy  with  history.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  the  destruction 
of  the  city  was  by  slow  degrees,  successively  promoted  by  the  conquests  of 
Cyrus,  Darius  Hystaspes,  Alexander  the  Great,  Antigouus,  Demetrius,  the 
Parthians,  and  the  founding  of  the  cities  of  Seleucia  and  Ctesiphon.  Strabo 
calls  Babylon  /xs^/a/.?;!/  hri'iiav.  Pausanias  says  that  in  his  day  ohhh  sV/  jfi/ 
i'l  firi  rilyjic.  In  Jerome's  time  this  wall  only  served  as  the  enclosure  of  a 
park  or  hunting  ground.  From  this  apparent  disagreement  of  the  prophecy 
with  history,  Cocceius  seems  disposed  to  infer  that  it  relates  not  to  the 
literal  but  spiritual  Babylon.  The  true  conclusion  is  that  drawn  by  Calvin, 
that  the  prophecy  does  not  relate  to  any  one  invasion  or  attack  exclusively, 
but  to  the  whole  process  of  subjection  and  decay,  so  completely  carried  out 
through  a  course  of  ages,  that  the  very  site  of  ancient  Babylon  is  now  dis- 
puted. This  hypothesis  accounts  for  mauy  traits  in  the  description  v.hich 
appear  inconsistent  only  in  consequence  of  being  all  applied  to  one  point 
of  time,  and  one  catastrophe  exclusively. 

20.  It  shall  nut  be  inhabited  for  ever  {i.  e.  it  shall  never  again,  or  no 
more,  be  inhabited)  and  it  shall  not  he  divelt  in  from  (jeneration  to  generation 
(hterally  to  generation  and  generation) — neither  shall  the  Arab  pitcli,  tent 
there — neither  shall  sJie/jherds  cause  (their  flocks)  to  lie  there.  The  conver- 
sion of  a  populous  and  fertile  district  into  a  vast  pasture -ground,  however 
rich  and  well  frequented,  implies  extensive  ruin,  but  not  such  ruin  as  is 
here  denounced.  Babylon  was  not  even  to  be  visited  by  shepherds,  nor  to 
serve  as  the  encamping  gi-ound  of  wandering  Arabs.  The  completeness  of 
the  threatened  desolation  will  be  seen  by  comparing  these  expressions  with 
chap.  V.  5,  17,  vii.  21,  xvii.  2,  where  it  is  predicted  that  the  place  in  question 
should  be  for  flocks  to  lie  doivn,  ivitJi  iione  to  make  thtui  afraid.  So  fully 
has  this  prophecy  been  verified  that  the  Bedouins,  according  to  the  latest 
travellers,  are  even  superstitiously  afraid  of  passing  a  single  night  upon  the 
site  of  Babylon.  The  simplest  version  of  the  first  clause  would  be,  she  shall 
not  divell  for  ever,  she  shall  not  abide,  &c.  And  this  construction  is  actually 
given  by  Calvin  and  Ewuld.  But  the  great  majority  of  writers  follow  the 
Septuagint  and  Vulgate  in  ascribing  to  the  active  verbs  a  passive  or  intran- 
sitive sense.  Kimchi  explains  this  usage  on  the  ground  that  the  city  is 
made  to  represent  its  inhabitants — she  dwells  for  Jier  people  divell.  This  in- 
transitive usage  of  the  verbs  is  utterly  denied  by  Hengstenberg  on  Zechariah 
xii.  G  (Christol.  ii.  28G),  but  maintained  against  him  by  Gesenius  in  his 
Thesaurus  (ii.  635).  The  result  appears  to  be,  that  in  a  number  of  cases, 
the  intransitive  version  is  required  by  the  context.  The  only  objection  to 
it  in  the  case  before  us,  is  that  it  does  not  here  seeua  absolutely  necessary. 
The  choice  therefore  lies  between  the  general  usage  of  31^'''  and  \y^  as  active 
verbs,  and  their  special  usage  in  connection  with  prophecies  of  desolation. 
The  sense  of  sitting  on  a  throne,  ascribed  to  3t^'  here  by  Gataker,  and  else- 
where by  Hengstenberg,  does  not  agree  so  well  with  that  of  the  other  verb 
and  with  the  general  import  of  the  threatening.  On  the  whole,  the  passive 
or  neuter  construction,  though  not  absolutely  necessary,  is  the  most  satis- 
factory and  natural. — ?n!  is  explained  by  the  rabbinical  interpreters  as  a 


282  ISAIAU  XITI.  [Yer.  21. 

contractiou  of  ^H**!',  tlic  Kal  of  whicli  is  used  in  tlie  sense  of  pltchinfr  a  tent 
or  encamping,  Gen.  xiii,  12,  18.  (See  Geseuius  §  G7,  Rem.  2).  Tliis  ex- 
planation is  adopted  by  most  modern  writers.  Rosenmiiller  and  Ewald, 
however,  make  the  form  a  Hiphil  one  for  i'''^^!.  Hitzig  takes  it  likewise  as 
a  Hiphil,  but  from  ?n3  to  lead  (flocks)  to  xvater,  which  is  also  found  con- 
nected with  the  Hiphil  of  y^}  in  Ps.  xxiii.  2.  Hendewerk  objects  that 
although  this  verb  is  repeatedly  used  by  Isaiah,  it  is  always  in  the  Piel  form 
(chap.  xl.  11,  xlix.  10,  li.  18).  The  Hiphil  occurs  nowhere  else,  and  the 
contraction  assumed  by  Hitzig  rarely  if  at  all.  The  derivation  from  ^HX  ig 
assumed  in  the  Chaldce  Paraphrase  and  Vulgate  Version. — Barnes  applies 
this  clause  to  the  encampment  of  caravans,  and  supposes  it  to  mean  that 
wayfarers  will  not  lodge  there  even  for  a  night.  But  the  mention  of  shep- 
herds immediately  afterwards  renders  it  more  probable  that  the  allusion  is 
to  the  nomadic  habits  of  the  Bedouins,  who  are  still  what  Strabo  repre- 
sents^ them,  half  shepherds  and  half  robbers  [ay.rtviTai  Xyjar^r/.o!  rmg  xa! 
<n-ci/ji,ivtxoi),  passing  from  one  place  to  another  when  their  plunder  or  their 
pasture  fails.  Gesenius  suggests  that  '^^"^V  may  here  be  used  generically 
to  denote  this  class  of  persons  or  their  mode  of  life.  There  can  be  no 
doubt,  however,  that  Arabians,  properly  so  called,  do  actually  overrun  the 
region  around  Babylon  with  their  flocks  and  herds,  although,  as  we  have 
seen,  they  refuse  to  take  up  their  abode  upon  the  doomed  site  of  the 
vanished  city. 

21.  Having  excluded  men  and  the  domesticated  animals  from  Babylon, 
the  Prophet  now  tells  how  it  shall  be  occupied,  viz.  by  creatures  which  are 
only  found  in  deserts,  and  the  presence  of  which  therefore  is  a  sign  of 
desolation.  In  the  first  clause  these  solitary  creatures  are  referred  to  in  the 
general ;  the  other  clause  specifies  two  kinds  out  of  the  many  which  are  else- 
where spoken  of  as  dwelling  in  the  wilderness.  But  there  (instead  of  flocks) 
shall  lie  chntm  desert  creatures — and  their  houses  (those  of  the  Babylonians) 
sJiall  be  fdled  uith  howls  or  yells — and  there  shall  dwell  (he  dazujhters  of  the 
ostrich — and  shaggy  beasts  (or  tvild  goats)  shall  gambol  there.  The  contrast 
is  heightened  by  the  obvious  allusion  in  1V3"1  and  "l^Dw*  to  the  ptiTl  and 
1^*^3*1^  of  ver.  20.  As  if  he  had  said,  flocks  shall  not  lie  down  there,  but 
wild  beasts  shall ;  man  shall  not  dwell  there,  but  the  ostrich  shall.  The 
meaning  evidently  is,  that  the  populous  and  splendid  city  should  become  the 
home  of  animals  found  only  in  the  wildest  solitudes.  To  express  this  idea, 
other  species  might  have  been  selected  with  the  same  eflect.  The  endless 
discussions  therefore  as  to  the  identity  of  those  here  named,  however  laud- 
able as  tending  to  promote  exact  lexicography  and  natural  history,  have 
little  or  no  bearing  on  the  interpretation  of  the  passage.  The  fullest  state- 
ment of  the  questions  in  detail  may  be  found  in  Bochart's  Hierozoicon  and 
in  Gesenius's  Thesaurus,  under  the  several  words  and  phrases.  Nothing 
more  will  be  here  attempted  than  to  settle  one  or  two  points  of  comparative 
importance.  Man}'  interpreters  regard  the  whole  verse  as  an  enumeration 
of  particular  animals.  Thus  C'^  has  been  rendered  tvild-catx,  monkeys, 
vampyres ;  DTIX  ou'/s,  loeasels,  dragons,  &c.,  &c.  This  has  arisen  from 
the  assumption  of  a  perfect  parallelism  in  the  clauses.  It  is  altogether 
natural,  however  to  suppose  that  the  writer  would  first  make  use  of  general 
expressions  and  afterwards  descend  to  particulars.  This  supposition  is  con- 
firmed by  the  etymology  and  usage  of  D^^^*,  both  which  determine  it  to 
mean  those  belonging  to  or  dwelling  in  the  desert.  In  this  sense,  it  is 
sometimes  applied  to  men  (Ps.  Ixxii.  9,  Ixxiv.  14),  but  as  these  are  here 


Ver.  21.]  ISAIAH  XIII.  283 

excluded  by  the  preceding  verse,  nothing  more  was  needed  to  restrict  it  to 
wild  animals,  to  which  it  is  also  applied  in  chap,  xxxiv.  14,  and  Jer.  1.  39. 
This  is  now  commonly  agreed  to  be  the  meaning,  even  by  those  who  give  to 
D''nS  a  specific  sense.     The  same  writers  admit  that  D^nX  properly  denotes 
the  howls  or  cries  of  certain  animals,  and  only  make  it  mean  the  animals 
themselves,  because  such  are  mentioned  in  the  other  clauses.     But  it  D"^' 
has  the  generic  sense  which  all  now  give  it,  the  very  parallelism  of  the 
clauses  favours  the  explanation  of  DTIK  in  its  original  and  proper  sense  of 
liowls  or  yells,   viz.   those    uttered  by  the   Q''''^.      The   common  version 
{doleful  creatures)  is  too  indefinite  on  one  of  these  hypotheses,  and  too 
specific  on  the  other.     The  daucjhter  of  the  ostrich  is  an  oriental  idiom  for 
ostriches  in  general,  or  for  the  female  ostrich  in  particular.     The  old  trans- 
lation owls  seem  to  be  now  universally  abandoned.     The  most  interesting 
point  in  the  interpretation  of  this  verse  has  reference  to  the  word  D"'1"'yk^. 
The  history  of  its  interpretation  is  so  curious  as  to  justify  more  fulness  of 
detail  than  usual.     It  has  never  been  disputed  that  its  original  and  proper 
sense  is  hairy,  and  its  usual  specific  sense  he-goats.     In  two  places  (Lev. 
xvii.  7  ;  2  Chron.  xi.  15),  it  is  used  to  denote  objects  of  idolatrous  worship, 
probably  images  of  goats,  which  according  to  Herodotus  were  worshipped 
in  Egypt.     In  Chronicles  especially  this  supposition  is  the  natural  one, 
because  the  word  is  joined  with  ^'h'^V  calves.     Both  there  and  in  Leviticus, 
the  Septuagint  renders  it  {laraioi;,  vain  things,  i.  e.  false  gods,  idols.     But 
the  Targum  on  Le\iticus  explains  it  to  mean  demons  (Pl^),  and  the  same 
interpretation  is  given  in  the  case  before  us  by  the  Septuagint  (Sai/Movia), 
Targum  (IHtJ'  ),  audPeshito  (l5"U)-     The  Vulgate  in  Leviticus  translates  the 
word  daemonihus,  but  here  pilosi.     The  interpretation  given  by  the  other 
three  versions  is  adopted  also  by  the  Rabbins,  Aben  Ezra,  Jarchi,  Kimchi, 
&c.     It  appears  hkewise  in  the  Talmud  and  early  Jewish  books.     From 
this  traditional  interpretation  of  Q'^^V'^,  here  and  in  chap,  xxxiv.  14,  appears 
to  have  arisen,  at  an  early  period,  a  popular  belief  among  the  Jews,  that 
demons  or  evil  spirits  were  accustomed  to  haunt  desert  places  in  the  shape 
of  goats  or  other  animals.     And  this  belief  is  said  to  be  actually  cherished 
by  the  natives  near  the  site  of  Babylon  at  the  present  day.     Let  us  now 
compare  this  Jewish   exposition  of  the  passage  with  its  treatment  among 
Christians.     To  Jerome,  the  combination  of  the  two  meanings,  goats  and 
demons,  seems  to  have  suggested  the  Pans,  Fauns,  and  SatjTS  of  the  classi- 
cal mythology,  imaginary  beings  represented  as  a  mixture  of  the  human 
form  with  that  of  goats,  and  supposed  to  frequent  forests  and  other  lonely 
places.     This  idea  is  carried  out  by  Calvin,  who  adopts  the  word  sahjri  in 
his  version,  and  explains  the  passage  as  relating  to  actual  appearances  of 
Satan  under  such  disguises.     Luther,  in  like  manner,  renders  it  Feldgeister. 
Vitringa  takes  another  step,  and  understands  the  language  as  a  mere  con- 
cession or  allusion  to  the  popular  belief,  equivalent  to  saying,  the  solitude  of 
Babylon  shall  be  as  awful  as  if  occupied  by  Fauns  and  Satyrs— there  if 
anywhere,  such  beings  may  be  looked  for.     In  explaining  how  Dn'^yi^  came 
to  be  thus  used,  he  rejects  the  supposition  of  actual  apparitions  of  the  evil 
spirit,  and  ascribes  the  usage  to  the  fact  of  men's  mistaking  certain  shaggy 
apes  (or  other  animals  approaching  to  the  human  form),  for  incarnations  of 
the  devil.     Forerius  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  understand  the  animals  themselves 
to  be  here  meant.     The  latter  uses  in  his  version  the  word  Waldteifel 
(wood-devils,  forest-demons),  but  is  careful  to  apprise  the  reader  in  a  note 
that  it  is  the  German  name  for  a  species  of  ape  or  monkey,  and  that  the 


281  ISAIAH  XIII.  VKa.  21. 

Hebrew  cont.iins  no  allusion  to  tlie  devil.  The  same  word  is  used 
by  Gcsenius  and  others  in  its  proper  sense.  Saadias,  Cocceius,  Clericus, 
and  Heiidersjn,  return  to  the  original  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word,  to 
wit,  wild  goats.  But  the  great  majority  of  modem  writers  tenaciously 
adhere  to  the  old  tradition.  This  is  done,  not  only  by  the  German  neo- 
logists,  who  lose  no  opportunity  of  finding  a  mythology  in  Scripture,  but 
by  Lowth,  Barnes,  and  Stuart,  in  his  exposition  of  Rev.  xi.  2,  and  his  VjX- 
cursus  on  the  Angelology  of  Scripture  (Apocal.  ii.  403).  The  arguments 
in  favour  of  this  exposition  are:  (1)  the  exegetical  tradition  of  the  Jews  ; 
(2)  their  popular  belief,  and  that  of  the  modern  orientals,  in  such  appari- 
tions ;  (3)  our  Saviour's  allusion  (Mat.  xii.  43)  to  the  unclean  spirit,  as 
walking  through  dry  places,  seeking  rest  and  finding  none ;  (4)  the  descrip- 
tion of  Babylon  in  Rev.  xviii.  2,  as  the  abode  of  demons,  and  the  hold  (or 
prison  house)  of  every  foul  spirit  and  of  every  unclean  and  hateful  bird, 
with  evident  allusion  to  the  passage  now  before  us.  Upon  this  state  of  the 
case  it  may  be  remarked  :  (1)  That  even  on  the  supposition  of  a  reference  to 
evil  spirits,  there  is  no  need  of  assuming  any  concession  or  accommodation 
to  the  current  superstitions.  If  DH^VEJ'  denotes  demons,  this  text  is  a  proof, 
not  of  a  popular  belief,  but  of  a  fact,  of  a  real  apparition  of  such  spirits 
under  certain  forms.  (2)  The  Jewish  tradition  warrants  the  application  of 
the  Hebrew  tenn  to  demons,  but  not  to  the  fauns  or  satyrs  of  the  Greek  and 
Roman  fabulists.  (3)  The  fauns  and  satyrs  of  the  classical  mythology 
were  represented  as  grotesque  and  frolicsome,  spiteful,  and  mischievous,  but 
not  as  awful  and  terrific  beings,  such  as  might  naturally  people  horrid  soli- 
tudes. (4)  The  popular  belief  of  the  Jews  and  other  orientals  may  be 
traced  to  the  traditional  interpretation  of  this  passage  (see  Stuart  iibi  supra), 
and  this  to  the  Septuagint  Version.  But  we  do  not  find  that  any  of  the 
modern  writers  adopt  the  Septuagint  Version  of  njy  mJ3  ((te/p^vej)  or  of 
D'''*N  in  the  next  verse  {ovoxivraiisot).  If  these  are  mere  blunders  or  con- 
ceits, so  may  the  other  be,  however  gi*eat  its  influence  on  subsequent  opini- 
ons. (5)  There  is  probably  no  allusion  in  Mat.  xii.  43  to  this  passage, 
and  the  one  in  Rev.  xviii.  2,  is  evidently  founded  on  the  Septuagint  Version, 
which  was  abundantly  sufiicient  for  the  purpose  of  a  symbolical  accommoda- 
tion. What  the  Greek  translators  incorrectly  gave  as  the  meaning  of  this 
passage  might  be  said  with  trnth  of  the  spiritual  Babylon.  (6)  The  men- 
tion of  demons  in  a  list  of  beasts  and  birds  is  at  variance  not  only  with  the 
favourite  canon  of  parallelism,  but  with  the  natural  and  ordinary  usage  of  lan- 
guage. Such  a  combination  and  arrangement  as  the  one  supposed — ostriches 
— demons — wolves — jackals — would  of  itself  be  a  reason  for  suspecting  that 
the  second  tenn  must  really  denote  some  kind  of  animal,  even  if  no  such 
usage  existed.  (7)  The  usage  of  D"'1''y'>^*,  as  the  name  of  an  animal,  is  perfectly 
■well  defined  and  certain.  Even  in  Lev.  xvii.  7,  and  2  Chron.  xi.  15,  this, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  the  only  natural  interpretation.  The  result  appears  to 
be  that  if  the  question  is  determined  by  tradition  and  authority,  Dn^yi*'  de- 
notes demons ;  if  by  the  context  and  the  usage  of  the  word,  it  signifies  n-'dd 
goats,  or  more  generically  hairg,  shaggij  animals.  According  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  modern  exegesis,  the  latter  is  clearly  entitled  to  the  preference ;  but 
even  if  the  former  be  adopted,  the  language  of  the  text  should  be  regarded, 
not  as  "  a  touch  from  the  popular  pneumatology  "  (as  Rev.  xviii.  2,  is  de- 
scribed by  Stuart  in  loc),  but  as  the  prediction  of  a  real  tact,  which,  though 
it  should  not  be  assumed  without  necessity,  is  altogether  possible,  and  there- 
fore if  alleged  in  Scripture,  altogether  credible.  The  argument  in  favour 
of  the  strict  interpretation,  and  against  the  traditional  and  current  one,  is 


Ver.  22.  J  ISAIAH  XIV.  285 

preseuted  briefly,  but  with  great  strength  and  clearness,  in  Henderson's  note 
upon  the  passage. 

22.  And  wolves  shall  hotvl  in  his  (the  king  of  Babylon's)  palaces,  and 
jackals  in  the  temples  of  pleasure.  And  near  to  come  is  her  -^Babylon's) 
tiine,  and  her  days  shall  not  be  prolonf/ed. — The  names  D^''i<  and  C'^ri  have 
been  as  variously  exphiined  as  those  in  ver.  21.  The  latest  ^^Titcrs  seem 
to  be  agreed  that  they  are  different  appellations  of  the  jackal,  but  in  order 
to  retain  the  original  variety  of  expression,  substitute  another  animal  in 
one  of  the  clauses,  such  as  tcolves  (Gesenius),  wild-cats  (Ewald),  &c.  As 
Q^^X,  according  to  its  etj-mology,  denotes  an  animal  remarkable  for  its  cry, 
it  might  be  rendered  hyenas,  thereby  avoiding  the  improbable  assumption 
that  precisely  the  same  animal  is  mentioned  in  both  clauses.  But  what- 
ever be  the  species  here  intended,  the  essential  idea  is  the  same  as  in  the 
foregoing  verse,  viz.  that  Babylon  should  one  day  be  inhabited  exclusively 
by  animals  pecuHar  to  the  wilderness,  implying  that  it  should  become  a 
wilderness  itself.  The  contrast  is  heightened  here  by  the  particular  men- 
tion of  palaces  and  abodes  of  pleasure,  as  about  to  be  converted  into  dens 
and  haunts  of  solitary  animals.  This  fine  poetical  conception  is  adopted 
by  Milton  in  his  sublime  description  of  the  flood — 

And  in  their  palaces 
"Where  luxury  late  reigned,  sea-monsters  whelped 
And  stabled. 

The  meaning  of  rilJOPN,  iu  every  other  case  where  it  occurs,  is  widows, 
in  which  sense  some  rabbinical  and  other  writers  understand  it  here.     But 
as  it  differs  only  in  a  single  letter  from  n"l3D"lX  palaces,  and  as  ?  and  "1  are 
sometimes  hiterchanged,  it  is  now  commonly  regarded  as  a  mere  orthocrra- 
phical  variation,  if  not  an  error  of  transcription.     It  is  possible,  however 
that  the  two  forms  were  designedly  confounded  by  the  writer,  in  order  to 
suggest  both  ideas,  that  of  palaces  and  that  of  widowhood  or  desolation. 
This  explanation  is  adopted  in  the  English  Version,  which  has  palaces  in 
the  margin,  but  in  the  text  desolate  houses,     Henderson  avoids  the  repeti- 
tion oi  palaces,  by  rendering  the  second  phrase  temples  of  pleasure,  which 
affords  a  good  sense,  and  is  justified  by  usage.     The  older  writers  explain 
HJ]^  as  denoting  a  responsive  cry ;  but  the  latest  lexicographers  make  ansirer 
a  secondary  meaning  of  the  verb,"  which  they  explain  as  properly  denoting 
to  sing,  or  to  utter  any  inarticulate  sound,  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
subject.     Hence  it  is  translated  hoivl. — The  last  clause  of  the  verse  mav  be 
strictly  understood,  but  iu  application  to  the  Jewish  captives  in  the  Babv- 
lonian  exile,  for  whose  consolation  the  prophecy  was  partly  intended.     Or 
we  may  understand  it  as  denoting  proximity  in  reference  to  the  events 
which  had  been  passing  in  the  Prophet's  view.     He  sees  the  signals  erected 
— he  hears  a  noise  in  the  mountains — and  regarding  these  as  actually  pre- 
sent, he  exclaims,  her  time  is  near  to  come  !     It  may,  however,  mean   as 
similar  expressions  do  in  other  cases,  that  when  the  appointed  time  should 
come,  the  event  would  certainly  take  place,  there  could  be  no  postponement 
or  delay. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  destruction  of  Babylon  is  again  foretold,  and  more  explicitly  con- 
nected with  the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  bondage.     After  a  general  assur- 


286  ISAIAH  XIV.  [Vi!r.  1. 

ance  of  God's  favour  to  his  people,  and  of  an  exchange  of  conditions  between 
them  and  their  oppressors,  they  are  represented  as  joining  in  a  song  of 
triumph  over  their  fallen  enemy.  In  this  song,  which  is  universal^  ad- 
mitted to  possess  the  highest  literary  merit,  they  describe  the  earth  as  again 
reposing  from  its  agitation  and  affliction,  and  then  breaking  forth  into  a 
shout  of  exultation,  in  which  the  very  trees  of  the  forest  join,  vers.  1-8. 
By  a  still  bolder  figure,  the  unseen  world  is  represented  as  perturbed  at  the 
approach  of  the  fallen  tyrant,  who  is  met,  as  he  enters,  by  the  kings  already 
there,  amazed  to  find  him  sunk  as  low  as  themselves,  and  from  a  still  greater 
height  of  actual  elevation  and  of  impious  pretensions,  which  are  strongly 
contrasted  with  his  present  condition,  as  deprived  not  only  of  regal  honours 
but  of  decent  burial,  vers.  9-20.  The  threatening  is  then  extended  to  the 
whole  race,  and  the  prophecy  closes  as  before  with  a  prediction  of  the  total 
desolation  of  Babylon,  vers.  21-23. 

Vers.  21-27  are  regarded  by  the  latest  writers  as  a  distinct  prophecy, 
unconnected  with  what  goes  before,  and  misplaced  in  the  arrangement  of 
the  book.  The  reasons  for  beUeving  that  it  is  rather  an  appendix  or  con- 
clusion, added  by  the  Prophet  himself,  will  be  fully  stated  in  the  exposition. 

Vers.  28-32  are  regarded  by  a  still  greater  number  of  writers  as  a  dis- 
tinct prophecy  against  Philistia.  The  traditional  arrangement  of  the  text, 
however,  creates  a  strong  presumption  that  this  passage  stands  in  some  close 
connection  with  what  goes  before.  The  true  state  of  the  case  may  be,  that 
the  Prophet,  having  reverted  from  the  downfall  of  Babylon  to  that  of  Assyria, 
now  closes  with  a  warning  apostrophe  to  the  Philistines  who  had  also  suf- 
fered fi-om  the  latter  power,  and  were  disposed  to  exult  unduly  in  its  over- 
throw. If  the  latter  application  of  the  name  Philistia  to  the  whole  land  of 
Canaan  could  be  justified  by  Scriptural  usage,  these  verses  might  be  under- 
stood as  a  warning  to  the  Jews  themselves  not  to  exult  too  much  in  their 
escape  from  Assyrian  oppression,  since  they  were  j'et  to  be  subjected  to  the 
heavier  yoke  of  Babylonian  bondage.  Either  of  these  suppositions  is  more 
reasonable  than  that  this  passage  is  an  independent  prophecy  subjoined  to 
the  foregoing  one  by  caprice  or  accident.    . 

1.  This  verse  declares  God's  purpose  in  destroying  the  Babylonian 
power.  For  Jehovah  will  jnty  (or  have  mercy  upon)  Jacob,  and  ivill  ocjain 
(or  still)  choose  Israel  and  cause  them  to  rest  on  their  [oxen]  land — and  the 
stranger  shall  he  joined  to  them — a7id  they  (the  strangers)  shall  be  attached 
to  the  house  of  Jacob.  Jacob  and  Israel  are  here  used  for  the  whole  race. 
The  plural  pronoun  them  does  not  refer  to  Jacob  and  Israel  as  the  names  of  dif- 
ferent persons,  but  to  each  of  them  as  a  collective.  For  the  same  reason  -in^Cpj 
is  plural,  though  agi-eeing  with  "liin.  By  God's  still  choosing/  Israel  we  are  to 
understand  his  continuing  to  treat  them  as  his  chosen  people.  Or  we  may 
render  liy  again,  in  which  case  the  idea  will  be,  that  having  for  a  time  or  in 
appearance  cast  them  off  and  given  them  up  to  other  lords,  he  would  now 
take  them  to  himself  again.  Gesenius  gives  two  specimens  in  this  verse  of 
his  disposition  to  attenuate  the  force  of  the  Hebrew  words  by  needlessly  de- 
parting from  their  primary  import.  Because  ID?  is  occasionally  used  where 
we  should  simply  speak  of  loving  or  preferring,  and  because  the  Hiphil  of 
n-13  to  rest,  is  sometimes  used  to  signify  the  act  of  layinij  down  or  placinp, 
he  adopts  these  two  jejune  and  secondary  senses  here. — In  this  he  is  closely 
followed  by  Be  "NVette.  Hii/ig,  Hendewerk,  and  Umbreit,  have  the  good 
taste  to  give  "in3  its  distinctive  sense,  but  Ewald  alone  among  the  later 
Germans  has  done  full  justice  to  the  meaning  of  both  words,  by  translating 
the  first  choose  and  the  other  give  them  rest.     The  Vulgate  takes  the  3  after 


Yek.  2.]  ISAIAH  XIV.  287 

*in3  as  a  partitive  (eliget  de  Israel),  whereas  it  is  the  usual  connective 
particle  between  this  verb  and  its  object.  It  is  allowable,  but  not  necessaiy, 
to  give  the  Niphals  in  the  second  clause  a  reflexive  meaning,  as  some  writers 
do.  nj^^  is  followed  by  7V.  as  in  Numbers,  xviii.  2.  Knobel  understands 
by  "l.^n  the  sm-viving  Cauaanites,  some  of  them  who  went  into  captivity  with 
Israel  (Ezek.  xiv.  7,  xlvii.  22),  and  others  remained  in  possession  of  the 
land  (Ezra  ix.  1,  seq.).  But  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  for  restricting  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  especially  as  a  general  accession  of  the  Gentiles  is  so 
often  promised  elsewhere.  According  to  Cocceius  and  Gill,  the  maxim  of 
the  Talmud,  that  prosehjtes  are  like  a  scab,  is  founded  on  the  affinity  of  the 
verb  nSDJ  with  the  noun  nn2D. — Umbreit  correctly  understands  this  not  as 
a  mere  promise  of  temporal  deliverance  and  increase  to  Israel  as  a  nation, 
but  as  an  assm'ance  that  the  preservation  of  the  chosen  people  was  a  neces- 
sary means  for  the  fulfilment  of  God's  purposes  of  mercy  to  mankind  in 
general. — The  literal  fulfilment  of  the  last  clause,  in  its  primary  sense,  is 
clear  from  such  statements  as  the  one  in  Esther  viii.  17.  _. 

2.  And  nations  shall  take  them  and  hrinrj  them  to  their  place — and  the 
house  of  Israel  shall  take  possession  of  them  on  Jehovah's  land  for  male  and 
female  servants — aiul  (thus)  theij  (the  Israelites)  shall  be  the  captors  of  their 
captors,  and  rule  over  their  oppressors.  The  first  clause  is  rendered  some- 
what obscure  by  the  reference  of  the  pronoun  thein  to  diflerent  subjects,  tu'st 
the  Jews  and  then  the  Gentiles.  Umbreit  renders  D''^^  tribes  (Stamme), 
and  seems  to  refer  it  to  the  Jews  themselves,  and  the  fii'st  suffix  to  the 
Gentiles,  thereby  making  the  construction  uniform.  The  sense  will  then 
be,  not  that  the  Gentiles  shall  bring  the  Jews  home,  but  that  the  Jews  shall 
bring  the  Gentiles  with  them.  Most  intei-preters,  however,  are  agreed  that 
the  first  clause  relates  to  the  part  taken  by  the  Gentiles  in  the  restoration 
of  the  Jews. — To  a  Hebrew  reader  the  word  -l^n^riri  would  convey  the  idea, 
not  of  bare  possession  merely,  but  of  permanent  possession,  rendered  per- 
petual by  hereditaiy  succession.  The  word  is  used  in  this  sense,  and  with 
special  reference  to  slaves  or  servants,  in  Lev.  xxv.  46. — It  is  curious  to 
observe  the  meanings  put  upon  this  promise  by  the  different  schools  and 
classes  of  interpreters.  Thus  Grotius  understands  it  of  an  influx  of  foreign- 
ers after  Sennacherib's  invasion  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  an  interpretation 
equally  at  variance  with  the  context  and  with  histor3\  Cocceius,  as  the 
other  pole  or  opposite  extreme,  applies  it  to  the  flnal  deliverance  of  the 
Christian  Church  from  persecution  in  the  Roman  empii-e,  and  its  protection 
by  Constantius  and  establishment  by  Constantine.  Clericus  and  others  find 
the  whole  fulfilment  in  the  number  of  foreign  servants  whom  the  Jews 
brought  back  from  exile  (Ezra  ii.  65).  Calvin  and  others  make  the  change 
predicted  altogether  moral,  a  spiritual  conquest  of  the  true  religion  over 
those  who  were  once  its  physical  oppressors.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to 
compare  these  last  interpretations  without  feeling  the  necessity  of  some 
exegetical  hypothesis  by  which  they  may  be  reconciled.  Some  .of  the  worst 
errors  of  interpretation  have  arisen  from  the  mutual  exclusion  of  hypotheses 
as  incompatible,  which  really  agree,  and  indeed  are  necessary  to  complete 
each  other.  The  simple  meaning  of  this  promise  seems  to  be  that  the 
Church,  or  chosen  people,  and  the  other  nations  should  change  places,  the 
oppressed  becoming  the  oppressor,  and  the  slave  the  master.  This  of  course 
admits  both  an  external  and  internal  fulfilment.  In  a  lower  sense,  and  on  a 
smaller  scale,  it  was  accomplished  in  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile; 
but  its  full  accomplishment  is  jet  to  come,  not  with  respect  to  the  Jews  as 
a  people,  for  their  pre-eminence  has  ceased  for  ever,  but  with  respect  to  the 


288  ISAIAH  XIV.  [Ver.  3,  4. 

Church,  inchiding  Jews  and  Gentiles,  which  has  succeeded  to  the  rij^'hts  and 
privileges,  promises  and  actual  possessions,  of  God's  ancient  people.  The 
true  principle  of  exposition  is  adopted  even  by  the  Rabbins.  Jarchi  refers 
the  promise  to  the  future  (H^ny?),  to  the  period  of  cninpletc  redemption. 
Kimchi  more  explicitly  declares  that  its  fulfilment  is  to  be  sought  partly  in 
the  restoration  from  Babylon,  and  partly  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah. 

3.  And  it  shall  he  (or  come  to  pass)  in  the  daij  of  Jehovah's  eansinrj  thee 
to  rest  from  thij  toil  (or  sujferiiif/),  and  from  thy  commotion  (or  disquietude), 
and  from  the  hard  service  which  ivas  ivrou(iht  hij  thee  (or  imposed  upon  thee). 
The  precise  construction  of  the  last  words  seem  to  be,  in  which  (or  with 
respect  to  which)  it  was  wrought  with  thee,  i.e.  they  (indefinitely)  wrought 
with  thee,  or  thou  Avast  made  to  work.  The  nominative  of  *13V  is  not 
ni^y.  nor  the  relative  referring  to  it,  but  an  indefinite  subject  understood. 
This  impersonal  construction  makes  it  unnecessary  to  account  for  the 
masculine  form  of  the  verb  as  irregular.  Aben  Ezra  refers  3Vy  and  T3")  to 
pain  of  body  and  pain  of  mind,  and  Cocceius  to  outward  persecutions  and 
internal  divisions  of  the  Church.  But  they  are  much  more  probably  equiva- 
lent expressions  for  pain  and  suffering  in  general.  In  this  verse  and  the 
following  context,  the  Prophet,  in  order  to  reduce  the  general  promise  of  the 
foregoing  verse  to  a  more  graphic  and  impressive  form,  recurs  to  the  down- 
fall of  Babylon,  as  the  beginning  of  the  series  of  deliverances  which  he  had 
predicted,  and  describes  the  effect  upon  those  most  concerned,  by  putting 
into  the  mouth  of  Israel  a  song  of  triumph  over  their  oppressor.  This  is 
universally  admitted  to  be  one  of  the  finest  specimens  of  Hebrew,  and  indeed 
of  ancient,  composition. 

4.  That  thou  shalt  raise  this  sonri  over  the  kinn  of  Babylon  and  say,  Uoip 
hath  the  oppressor  ceased,  the  golden  {city)  ceased  1  The  Vav  at  the  beginning 
continues  the  construction  from  ^^'^^  in  ver.  3,  and  can  only  be  expressed 
in  our  idiom  by  that  — Nti'J  is  not  merely  to  begin  or  to  titter,  but  to  raise, 
as  this  word  is  employed  by  us  in  a  musical  sense,  including  the  ideas  of 
commencement,  utterance,  and  loudness. — p^'^  is  not  so  called  from  X'D 
to  rule,  but  from  ^??*9  to  resemble  or  compare.  Its  most  general  sense 
seems  to  be  tbat  of  tropical  or  figurative  language.  The  more  specific 
senses  which  have  been  ascribed  to  it  are  for  the  most  part  suggested  by  the 
context.  Here  it  may  have  a  special  reference  to  the  bold  poetical  fiction 
following.  If  so,  it  may  warn  us  not  to  draw  inferences  from  the  passage 
with  respect  to  the  unseen  world  or  the  state  of  departed  spirits.  Calvin's 
description  of  the  opening  sentence  as  sarcastic,  has  led  others  to  describe 
the  whole  passage  as  a  satire,  which  is  scarcely  consistent  with  its  peculiar 
merit  as  a  song  of  triumph. — "^^t?  is  an  exclamation  of  surprise,  but  at  the 
same  time  has  its  proper  force  as  an  interrogative  adverb,  as  appears  from 
the  answer  in  the  following  verse. — ^'-i^  is  properly  a  task-master,  slave- 
driver,  or  tax-gatherer.  n3n'70  is  derived  by  the  Rabbins  and  many  modern 
writers  from  3n?,  the  Chaldee  form  of  ^HT  gold,  in  which  Junius  sees  a 
sarcasm  on  the  Babylonians,  and  Gescnius  an  indication  that  the  writer 
lived  in  Babylonia  !  According  to  this  etymology,  the  word  has  been 
explained  by  Vitringa  as  meaning  a  golden  sceptre — by  others  the  golden 
citj' — the  place  or  repository  of  gold — the  exactress  of  gold,  taking  the 
word  as  a  participial  noun — the  exaction  of  gold,  taking  it  as  an  abstract 
— or  gold  itself,  considered  as  a  tribute.  From  dubious  Arabic  analogies, 
Schultens  and  others  have  explained  it  to  mean  the  destroyer  or  the 
plunderer.     J.  D.  Michaelis  and  the  later  Germans  are  disposed  to  read 


/ 


Veb.  5,  6.]  ISAIAH  XIV.  289 

namD  oppression,  which  is  found  in  one  edition,  appeal's  to  _  be  the 
basis  of  the  ancient  versions,  and  agrees  well  with  the  use  of  5f*|J  and 
•l^n^!"  in  chap,  iii.  5.  Ewald  gives  it  the  strong  sense  of  tyrannical  rage. — 
The  meaning  .of  the  first  clause  is  of  course  that  Israel  would  have  occasion 
to  express  such  feelings.  There  is  consequently  no  need  of  disputing  when 
or  where  the  song  was  to  be  sung.  Equally  useless  is  the  question  whether 
by  the  king  of  Babylon  we  are  to  understand  Nebuchadnezzar,  Evilmero- 
dach,  or  Belshazzar.  The  king  here  introduced  is  an  ideal  personage,  whose 
downfall  represents  that  of  the  Babylonian  monarchy. 

5.  This  verse  contains  the  answer  to  the  question  in  the  one  before  it. 
Jehovah  hath  Iroken  the  staff  of  the  wicked,  the  rod  of  the  rulers.  The 
meaning  tyrants,  given  to  the  last  word  by  Gesenius  and  the  later  Germans, 
is  implied,  but  not  expressed.  The  rod  and  staff  are  common  figures  for 
dominion,  and  their  being  broken  for  its  destruction.  There  is  no  need  of 
supposing  a  specific  reference  either  to  the  rod  of  a  task-master,  with  Gese- 
nius, or  to  the  sceptre  of  a  king,  with  Ewald  and  the  older  ^sTiters. 

6.  Smiting  nations  in  anger  by  a  stroke  xvithout  cessation — riding  nations 
in  iirath  hy  a  rule  without  restraint — literally,  which  he  {or  one  indefinitely) 
did  not  restrain. — The  participles  ipay  agree  grammatically  either  with  the 
rod  or  with  the  king  who  wields  it.  Junius  and  Tremellius  suppose  the 
punishment  of  the  Babylonians  to  be  mentioned  in  both  clauses.  "  As  for 
him  who  smote  the  nations  in  wrath,  his  stroke  shall  not  be  removed — he 
that  ruled  the  nations  in  anger  is  persecuted,  and  cannot  hinder  it."  The 
English  Version,  Lowth,  Barnes,  and  others,  apply  the  last  clause  only  to 
the  punishment ;  but  the  gi'eat  majority  both  of  the  oldest  and  the  latest 
writers  make  the  whole  descriptive  of  the  Babylonian  tjTanuy.  Kimchi, 
Calvin,  and  Vatablus  read  the  last  clause  thus — (if  any  one  was)  perse- 
cuted,  he  did  not  hinder  it.  Dathe  reads  flTl?3  as  an  active  participle 
(n^T"9))  and  this  reading  seems  to  be  likewise  supposed  in  the  Chaldee, 
Syriac,  and  Latin  versions.  Some  make  ^1?"?^  a  verbal  noun,  meaning 
persecution,  though  the  passive  form  is  singular,  and  scarcely  accounted  for 
by  Henderson's  suggestion,  that  it  means  persecution  as  experienced  rather 
than  as  practised.  AH  the  recent  German  writers  have  adopted  Doederlein's 
proposal  to  amend  the  text,  by  changing  ^"T^^  into  riTlO,  a  construct  form 
like  riDQ,  and  derived,  like  it,  from  the  immediately  preceding  verb.  Striking 
a  stroke  without  cessation,  swaying  a  sway  without  restraint,  vnll  then  cor- 
respond exactly,  as  also  the  remaining  phrases,  peoples  and  nations,  wrath 
and  anger.  Of  all  the  emendations  founded  on  the  principle  of  parallelism, 
there  is  none  more  natural  or  plausible  than  this,  the  rather  as  the  letters 
interchanged  are  much  aUke,  especially  in  some  kinds  of  Hebrew  writing, 
and  as  the  sense  is  very  little  aflfected  by  a  change  of  persecution  into  domi- 
nation. Henderson,  however,  though  he  admits  the  plausibiHty,  denies 
the  necessity  of  this  emendation.  It  may  also  be  observed  that  a  general 
application  of  this  principle  of  criticism  would  make  extensive  changes 
in  the  text.  For  although  there  may  be  no  case  quite  so  strong  as  this, 
there  are  doubtless  many  where  a  slight  change  would  produce  entire 
imiformity.  And  yet  the  point  in  which  the  parallelism  fails  may  sometimes 
be  the  verj^  one  designed  to  be  the  salient  or  emphatic  point  of  the  whole 
sentence.  Such  emendations  should  be  therefore  viewed  with  caution  and 
suspicion,  unless  founded  on  external  evidence,  or  but  slightly  affecting  the 
meaning  of  the  passage,  as  in  the  case  before  us.  Umbreit,  who  adopts 
Doederlein's  suggestion,  gives  to  iTT*  and  miD  what  is  supposed  to  be 

VOL.  I,  T 


290  ISAIAH  XIV.  [Vkr.  7,  8. 

their  primary  sense,  that  of  treading  or  trampling  under  foot. — Cocceius, 
who  applies  this  to  the  tyranny  of  Antichrist,  explains  n^D  ^ri?3  as  a  com- 
pound noun  (like  I'V^^?,  chap.  x.  15),  meaning  non-apostasy,  and  having 
reference  to  the  persecution  of  true  Christians  on  the  fixlse  pretence  of 
heresy,  schism,  or  apostasy.  By  the  side  of  this  may  be  placed  Abarbenel's 
intei-pretation  of  the  whole  verse  as  relating  to  God  himself. 

1.  At  rest,  quiet,  is  the  whole  earth,  lliey  hurst  forth  into  singing  (or 
a  shout  of  joy).  Jarchi  seems  to  make  the  first  clause  the  words  of  the 
song  or  shout  mentioned  in  the  second.  There  is  no  inconsistency  between 
the  clauses,  as  the  first  is  not  descriptive  oi  silence,  but  of  tranquillity  and 
rest.  Tlte  land  hud  rest  is  a  phrase  employed  in  the  book  of  Judges  (e.  g. 
chap.  V.  31)  to  describe  the  condition  of  the  country  after  a  gi'eat  national 
deliverance. — There  is  no  need  of  supposing  an  ellipsis  of  ^^?^'  to  agi'ee 
with  the  plural  -inv?,  as  Henderson  does,  since  it  may  just  as  well  be  con- 
strued with  Vp^O  as  a  collective,  or  indefinitely,  they  {i.e.  men  in  general) 
break  forth  intn  singing.  Ewald,  who  gives  the  whole  of  this  ''^''J  in  a 
species  of  blank  verse,  is  particularly  happy  in  his  version  of  this  sentence. 
{^Nun  ruht,  nun  rastet  die  game  Erde,  man  bricht  in  Jubel  aus.)  The  verb 
to  hurst  is  peculiarly  descriptive  of  an  ebullition  of  joy  long  suppressed  or 
suddenly  succeeding  grief.  Rosenmiiller  quotes  a  fine  parallel  from  Terence. 
Jamne  erumpere  hoc  licet  mihi  gaudium  ?  The  Hebrew  phrase  is  beauti- 
fully rendered  by  the  Septuagint,  /3oa  f/^ir  i\j:p^oa\jvr,g.  It  is  a  curious  illus- 
tration of  the  worth  of  certain  arguments,  that  while  Gesenius  makes  the 
use  of  this  phrase  a  proof  that  this  prediction  was  not  written  by  Isaiah, 
Henderson  with  equal  right  adduces  it  to  prove  that  he  was  the  author  of 
the  later  chapters,  in  which  the  same  expression  frequenth'  occurs. 

8,  Not  only  the  earth  and  its  inhabitants  take  part  in  this  triumphant 
song  or  shout,  but  the  trees  of  the  forest.  Also  (or  even)  the  cypresses 
rejoice  with  respect  to  thee — the  cedars  of  Lebanon  (saj'ing)  now  that  thou 
art  fallen  (literally  lain  down),  the  feller  (or  woodman,  literally  the  cutter) 
shall  not  come  up  against  us.  Now  that  we  are  safe  from  thee,  we  fear  no 
other  enemy.  The  K'1"i3  has  been  variously  explained  to  be  the  fir,  the  ash, 
and  the  pine ;  but  the  latest  authorities  decide  that  it  denotes  a  species  of 
cypress.  According  to  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Antilibanus  is  clothed  with  firs, 
as  Libanus  or  Lebanon  proper  is  with  cedars,  and  both  are  here  introduced 
as  joining  in  the  general  triumph.  Yitringa  makes  -l^yJ^  a  noun  with  a 
suffix,  meaning  our  leaves  or  our  iojjs  (cacumina  nostra).  Among  other 
reasons,  he  alleges  that  0^3  is  not  construed  with  7^  elsewhere.  But  the 
accents  might  have  taught  him  that  •13^'?V  is  dependent  on  'l/i',!,  and  that 
riDSn  is  to  be  construed  as  a  noun.  Forerius  reads  on  tis,  and  supposes  an 
allusion  to  the  climbing  of  the  tree  by  the  woodman,  in  order  to  cut  ofi"  the 
upper  branches.  Knobel  refers  the  words  in  the  same  sense  to  the  falling 
of  the  stroke  upon  the  trees.  It  is  much  more  natural,  however,  to  regard 
the  words  as  meaning  simply  to  us,  or  more  emphatically  against  us.  The 
preposition  in  "^?,  here  as  elsewhere,  strictly  denotes  general  relation,  as  to, 
with  respect  to.  The  specific  sense  of  over  or  against,  in  all  the  cases  which 
Gesenius  cites,  is  gathered  from  the  context.  Instead  of  liest,  Pagninus 
has  sleepest,  which  might  be  metaphorically  apphed  to  death,  but  is  not 
really  the  meaning  of  the  word,  which  denotes  a  sleeping  posture,  but  not 
sleep  itself.  As  to  the  meaning  of  the  figures  in  this  verse,  there  are  three 
distinct  opinions.  The  first  is,  that  the  trees  are  emblems  of  kings  and  other 
great  men.    This  is  the  explanation  given  in  the  Targum,  and  by  Cocceius, 


Ver.  9.]  ISAIAH  XIV.  291 

Vitringa,  and  other  interpreters  of  that  school.  The  second  opinion  is,  that 
the  trees,  as  such,  are  introduced  rejoicing  that  they  shall  no  more  be  cut 
down  to  open  roads,  or  to  supply  materials  for  barricades  or  forts,  or  for 
luxurious  buildings.  This  prosaic  exposition,  proposed  by  Aben  Ezra,  and 
approved  by  Grotius,  is  a  favourite  with  some  of  the  writers  at  the  present 
day  who  clamour  loudest  about  Hebrew  poetry,  and  insist  most  rigorously 
on  the  application  of  the  so-called  laws  of  versification.  The  third  opinion, 
and  the  only  one  that  seems  consistent  with  a  pure  taste,  is  the  one  pro- 
posed by  Calvin,  who  supposes  this  to  be  merely  a  part  of  one  great  picture, 
representing  universal  nature  as  rejoicing.  The  symbolical  and  mechanical 
interpretations  are  as  much  out  of  place  here  as  they  would  be  in  a  thousand 
splendid  passages  of  classical  and  modern  poetry,  where  no  one  yet  has  ever 
dreamed  of  applying  them.  Both  here  and  elsewhere  in  the  sacred  books 
inanimate  nature  is  personified,  and  speaks  herself,  instead  of  being  merely 
spoken  of. 

Ipsi  laetitia  voces  ad  sidera  jactant 

Intonsi  monies  ;  ipsse  jam  carmina  rupes, 

Ipsa  sonant  arbusta. 

The  Septuagint  version  of  n.."?J^!  as  a  preterite  (di/s/S/;),  which  is  followed  by 
all  the  early  writers,  is  not  only  arbitrary  and  in  violation  of  the  usus 
loqiiendi,  but  also  objectionable  on  the  ground  that  it  implies  too  long  an 
interval  between  the  utterance  of  the  words  and  the  catastrophe  which  called 
them  forth.  The  trees  are  not  to  be  considered  as  historically  stating  what 
has  happened  or  not  happened  since  a  certain  time,  but  as  expressing,  at 
the  very  moment  of  the  tyrant's  downfall,  or  at  least  soon  after  it,  a  confi- 
dent assurance  of  their  future  safety.  In  such  a  connection  TXO  corresponds 
exactly  to  the  English  now  that.  The  present  form  given  to  both  verbs 
(now  that  thou  liest,  no  one  comes,  &c.)  by  Luther  and  most  of  the  later 
Germans,  approaches  nearer  to  the  true  construction,  but  is  neither  so 
exact  nor  so  poetical  as  the  literal  translation  of  the  future  given  by  Rosen- 
miiller  and  Ewald,  and  before  them  by  the  Vulgate  (non  ascendet  qui 
succidat  nos).  It  is  characteristic  of  Cocceius  and  his  whole  scheme,  that 
he  makes  the  firs  and  cedars  mean  not  only  great  men  in  general,  but 
ecclesiastical  rulers  in  particular,  and,  in  his  exposition  of  the  verse,  refers 
expressly  to  the  Enghsh  bishops  who  became  reformers,  and  to  the  case 
of  the  Venetians  when  subjected  to  a  papal  interdict  in  1606.  Such  ex- 
positions have  been  well  described  by  Stuart  (Apocal.  ii.  p.  147)  as 
attempts  to  convert  prophecy  into  a  syllabus  of  civil  and  church  history. 

9.  The  bold  personification  is  now  extended  from  the  earth  and  its  forests 
to  the  invisible  or  lower  world,  the  inhabitants  of  which  are  represented  as 
aroused  at  the  approach  of  the  new  victim  and  as  coming  forth  to  meet 
him.  Hell  from  beneath  is  moved  (or  in  commotion)  for  thee  (i.  e.  on 
account  of  thee)  to  meet  thee  (at)  thy  coming  ;  it  rouses  for  thee  the  giants 
(the  gigantic  shades  or  spectres),  all  the  chief  ones  (literally,  he-goats)  of 
the  earth  ;  it  raises  from  their  thrones  all  the  kings  of  the  nations. — ^l  ^^ 
has  already  been  explained  (vide  supra,  chap.  v.  14)  as  meaning  first  a 
grave  or  individual  sepulchre,  and  then  the  grave  as  a  general  receptacle,  in- 
discriminately occupied  by  all  the  dead  without  respect  to  character,  as 
when  we  say,  the  rich  and  the  poor,  the  evil  and  the  good,  lie  together  in 
tlie  grave,  not  in  a  single  tomb,  which  would  be  false,  but  under  ground  and 
in  a  common  state  of  death  and  burial.  The  English  word  hell,  though 
now  appropriated  to  the  condition  or  the  place  of  future  torments,  corres- 
ponds, in  etymology  and  early  usage,  to  the  Hebrew  word  in  question. 


292  ISAIAH  Xir.  [Yer.  9. 

Gescnius  derives  it,  with  the  German  H'olle,  from  Huhlc  hollow,  but  the 
English  etymologists  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  helan,  to  cover,  which  amounts 
to  the  same  thing,  the  ideas  of  a  hollow  and  a  covered  place  being  e(]ually 
appropriate.  The  modern  English  versions  have  discarded  the  v.ord  hell 
as  an  equivocal  expression,  requiring  explanation  in  order  to  be  rightly 
understood.  But  as  the  Hebrew  word  Sheol,  retained  by  Henderson,  and 
the  Greek  word  Hade:^,  introduced  by  Lowth  and  Barnes,  require  explanation 
also,  the  strong  and  homely  Saxon  form  will  be  preferred  by  everj-  unsophis- 
ticated taste,  not  only  to  these  Greek  and  Hebrew  names,  but  also  to  the 
periphrases  of  Gesenins  (Schattenreich),  and  Hendewerk  (Todtenreich),  and 
even  to  the  simpler  and  more  poetical  expression  (Unterwelt),  employed  by 
Hitzig  and  De  AVette.  Ewald  and  Umbreit  have  the  good  taste  to  restore 
the  old  word  IIvllc  in  their  versions. — Two  expressions  have  been  faithfully 
transcribed  b}'  interpreters  from  one  another,  in  relation  to  this  passage, 
with  a  very  equivocal  cHect  upon  its  exjDosition.  The  one  is  that  it  is  full 
of  biting  sarcasm,  an  unfortunate  suggestion  of  Calvin's,  which  puts  the 
reader  on  the  scent  for  irony  and  even  wit,  instead  of  opening  his  mind  to 
impressions  of  sublimity  and  tragic  grandeur-.  The  other,  for  which  Calvin 
is  in  no  degree  responsible,  is  that  we  have  before  us  not  a  mere  prosopo- 
poeia or  poetical  creation  of  the  highest  order,  but  a  chapter  from  the 
popular  belief  of  the  Jews,  as  to  the  locality,  contents,  and  transactions  of 
the  unseen  world.  Thus  Gesenius,  in  his  lexicon  and  commentary,  gives  a 
minute  topographical  description  of  Sheol,  as  tlie  Hebrews  believed  it  to 
exist.  With  equal  truth  a  diligent  compiler  might  construct  a  map  of  hell, 
as  conceived  of  by  the  English  Puritans,  from  the  descriptive  portions  of  the 
Paradise  Lost.  The  infidel  interpreters  of  Germany  regard  the  Scriptural 
and  classical  mythology  precisely  in  the  same  light.  But  when  Chi'istiau 
writers  copy  their  expressions  or  ideas,  the}'  should  take  pains  to  explain 
whether  the  popular  belief,  of  which  they  speak,  was  trae  or  false,  and  if 
false,  how  it  could  be  countenanced  and  sanctioned  by  inspired  writers. 
This  kind  of  exposition  is  moreover  chargeable  with  a  rhetorical  incongi-uity 
in  lauding  the  creative  genius  of  the  poet,  and  yet  making  all  his  gi-and 
creations  commonplace  articles  af  popular  belief.  The  true  view  of  the 
matter,  as  determined  both  by  piety  and  taste,  appears  to  be,  that  the 
passage  now  before  us  comprehends  two  elements,  and  only  twOj^ religious 
verities  or  certain  facts,  and  poetical  embellishments.  It  may  not  be  easy 
to  distinguish  clearly  between  these  ;  but  it  is  only  between  these  that  we 
are  able  or  have  an}'  occasion  to  distinguish.  The  admission  of  a  terlium 
quid,  in  the  shape  of  superstitious  fables,  is  as  fiilse  in  rhetoric  as  in  theolog}'. 
— Gesenius,  iu  the  earlier  editions  of  hislexicon,  and  in  his  commentary  on 
Isaiah,  derives  D''NS1  from  HST  to  be  weak,  and  makes  it  a  poetical  descrip- 
tion of  the  manes,  shades,  or  jdiantoms  of  the  unseen  world.  In  the  last 
edition  of  his  lexicon,  he  derives  it  from  i<S"i,  to  be  still  or  quiet,  a  suppo- 
sititious meaning  founded  on  an  Arabic  analog}'.  By  this  new  derivation  he 
destroys  the  force  of  the  argument  derived  from  the  expression  in  the  next 
verse,  •'  Thou  art  become  xveak  (rivPI)  as  we,"  to  which  it  may  also  be 
objected  that  if  the  author  designed  any  such  allusion  he  would  probably 
have  used  the  word  ri''D"l  from  HQI.  The  ancient  versions  and  all  the  early 
writers  understand  it  to  mean  giants,  to  avoid  which  Gesenius  makes  D*NS"» 
in  the  prose  books  a  mere  proper  name  derived  from  NS"i  or  nsi,  their  an- 
cestor. But  this  last  always  has  the  article,  and  no  exegetical  tradition  is 
more  uniform  than  that  which  gives  to  Ecjjhaim  the  sense  of  giants.  Its 
application  to  the  dead  admits  of  several  explanations,  equally  plausible 


Vkr.  10.]  ISAIAH  XIV.  ■  293 

with  that  of  Gescnius,  and  entitled  to  the  preference  according  to  the 
modern  laws  of  lexicogi-aphy,  because  instead  of  multiplying  they  reduce 
the  number  of  distinct  significations.  Thus  the  shades  or  spectres  of  the 
dead  might  naturally  be  conceived  as  actually  larger  than  the  living  man, 
since  that  which  is  shadowy  and  indistinct  is  commonly  exaggerated  by  the 
fancy.  Or  there  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  Canaanitish  giants  who  were 
exterminated  by  divine  command  and  might  well  be  chosen  to  represent  the 
whole  class  of  departed  sinners.  Or  in  this  particular  case,  we  may  sup- 
pose the  kings  and  great  ones  of  the  earth  to  be  distinguished  from  the 
vulgar  dead,  as  giants  or  gigantic  forms.  Either  of  these  hypotheses  pre- 
cludes the  necessity  of  finding  a  new  root  for  a  common  word,  or  of  denying 
its  plain  usage  elsewhere.  As  to  mere  poetical  effect,  so  often  made  a  test 
of  truth,  there  can  be  no  comparison  between  the  description  of  the  dead  as 
weak  or  quiet  ones,  and  the  sublime  conception  of  gigantic  shades  or  phan- 
toms.— Aben  Ezra  and  Ivimchi  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  ^ifr?'^,  in  this 
one  verse,  is  construed  both  with  a  masculine  and  feminine  verb.  Hitzig 
explams  this  on  the  ground  that  in  the  first  clause  Sheol  is  passive,  in  the 
second  active  ;  Maurer,  with  more  success,  upon  the  ground  that  the  nearest 
verb  takes  the  feminine  or  proper  gender  of  the  noun,  while  the  more  remote 
one,  by  a  common  licence,  retains  the  masculine  or  radical  form,  as  in  chap, 
xxsiii.  9.  (See  Gesenius,  §  141,  Rem.  1).  Another  method  of  removing 
the  anomaly  is  aftbrded  by  an  ingenious  conjecture  of  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who 
detaches  "I^sn  from  what  precedes,  and  makes  it  the  subject  of  the  verb 
~l"liy.  T/iy  coming  rouses  the  gigantic  shades.  This  is  also  recommended 
by  its  doing  away  with  the  somewhat  harsh  construction  of  1^<12  adverbially 
after  "jriNIp?.  There  is  nothing  indeed  to  hinder  the  adoption  of  this 
simple  change,  but  the  general  expediency  of  adhering  to  the  Masoretic  in- 
terpunction  wherever  it  is  possible.  Some  of  the  older  writers  refer  "my  to 
the  King  of  Hell,  the  objection  to  which  is  not  its  inconsistency  with  Hebrew 
mythology,  but  its  being  wholly  arbitrary. — Because  nnno  is  sometimes 
simply  equivalent  to  nnri,  Gesenius  here  prefers  this  secondary  and  diluted 
meaning  to  the  one  which  he  himself  gives  as  the  primary  and  proper  one, 
and  which  is  really  demanded  by  the  figure  of  hell's  being  roused  and  coming 
forth  (or  as  it  were,  coming  up)  to  meet  him.  The  appropriateness  of  the 
strict  sense  here  is  recognized  by  Knobel,  who  renders  it  "  von  unten  her, 
namlich  entgegen  dem  von  oben  kommmenden  Chaldaer-konige." — Kings 
are  poetically  called  DHinj?  as  the  leaders  of  the  flocks.  J.  D.  Michaehs 
adopts  another  reading,  on  the  ground  that  his  readers  might  have  laughed 
at  the  idea  of  he-goats  rising  from  their  thrones.  But  as  this  combination 
is  at  variance  with  the  accents,  the  laugh  might  have  been  at  the  transla- 
tor's own  expense.  Hitzig  indeed  proposes  to  change  the  interpunction, 
but  he  translates  DHiny  the  mighty  ones  (Machtigen). — According  to 
Clericus,  the  dead  kings  are  here  represented  as  arising  from  their  ordinary 
state  of  profound  repose  upon  their  subterranean  thrones,  a  supposition  not 
required  by  the  terms  of  the  description,  though  it  adds  to  its  poetical 
effect.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  opinion,  that  the  kings  here  meant 
are  specifically  those  whom  the  king  of  Babylon  had  conquered  or  oppressed. 
Kimchi  seems  to  think  that  they  are  first  represented  as  alarmed  at  the  ap- 
proach of  theii'  old  enemy,  but  afterwards  surprised  to  find  him  like  them- 
selves. HTil,  however,  docs  not  necessarily  imply  fear,  but  denotes  agita- 
tion or  excitement  from  whatever  cause.  Cocceius  of  course  finds  a  reference 
in  this  clause  to  the  history  of  the  Reformation. 

10.  All  of  them  shall  answer  and  say  to  thee — thou  also  art  made  weak 


294  ISAIAH  X1V.I  .  [Yer.  11. 

fis  we— to  us  art  likened!  Calvin  persists  in  saying  haec  sunt  ludihria,  and 
his  successors  go  beyond  him  in  discovering  severe  taunts,  bitter  irony,  and 
biting  sarcasna,  in  this  natural  expression  of  surprise  that  one  so  far  supe- 
rior to  themselves  should  now  be  a  partaker  of  their  weakness  and  disgi'ace. 
The  idiomatic  use  of  answer,  both  in  Hebrew  and  in  Greek,  in  reference 
even  to  the  person  speaking  first,  is  so  familiar  that  there  can  be  no  need 
of  diluting  it  to  say  with  Calvin  (loqueutur),  or  transforming  it  into  accost 
with  Lowth  and  Barnes,  or  commence  with  Henderson  and  the  modern 
Germans.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  suppose,  with  (Ecolampadius,  that  they 
answer  his  thoughts  and  expectations  of  welcome  with  a  taunting  speech. 
Luther  seems  to  adopt  the  old  intei-pretations  of  responsive  or  alternate 
speech  (um  einander  reden).  Gesenius  makes  answer  a  secondary  sense, 
but  a  diflerent  deduction  is  proposed  by  Winer,  who  makes  reference  to 
another  person  an  essential  part  of  the  meaning.  Pagninus  translates  it 
here  vociferahuniur. — The  interrogative  form  given  to  the  last  clause  by 
Calvin  and  all  the  English  versions  is  entirely  arbitrary,  and  much  less  ex- 
pressive than  the  simple  assertion  or  exclamation  preferred  by  the  oldest 
and  latest  writers.  August!  supposes  the  words  of  the  D''NS1  to  extend 
through  ver.  11,  Rosenmiiller  through  ver.  13,  and  some  have  even  carried 
it  through  ver.  20 ;  but  Yitringa,  Lowth,  Gesenius,  and  the  later  wi-iters, 
more  correctly  restrict  it  to  the  verse  before  us,  partly  because  such  brevity 
is  natural  and  appropriate  to  the  case  supposed,  partly  because  the  termina- 
tion is  otheiTvise  not  easily  defined.  It  is  perfectly  conceivable,  however, 
that  in  such  a  piece  of  composition,  the  words  of  the  chief  speaker  and  of 
others  whom  he  introduces,  might  insensibly  run  into  one  another  without 
altering  the  sense. — As  "?t'"'23  does  not  elsewhere  take  ^^  after  it,  Knobel 
supposes  a  consiruciio  praegnans  (Gesen.  §  138),  "  thou  art  made  like  and 
actually  brought  to  us,"  but  this  supposition  is  entirely  gratuitous. 

11.  Down  to  the  grave  is  brought  thy  pride  (or  pomp) — the  music  of  thy 
harps — under  thee  is  spread  the  tvorm — thy  covering  is  vermin.  That  ?"INE^  is 
here  used  in  its  primary  sense  of  grave,  is  clear  from  the  second  clause. 
P^<J,  like  the  Enghsh  j5r«cZe,  may  either  signify  an  afl'ection  of  the  mind  or 
its  external  object.  The  size  and  shape  of  the  Dv33  are  of  no  exegetical 
importance  here,  as  the  word  is  evidently  put  for  musical  instruments  or 
music  in  general,  and  this  for  mirth  and  revelry.  {Videsrqyra,  chap.  v.  12). 
Both  the  nouns  in  the  last  clause  are  feminine,  while  the  verb  and  participle 
are  both  masculine.  This  has  led  the  latest  writers  to  explain  *1^D3D  as  a 
noun.  Lowth  reads  "IDDD  in  the  singular,  on  the  .authority  of  several 
manuscripts,  versions,  and  editions.  According  to  Gesenius  and  the  later 
Germans,  T^^^  is  itself  a  singular  form  peculiar  to  the  derivatives  of  f\^ 
roots.  (See  his  Heb.  Gr.  §  90).  But  even  if  it  be  a  plural,  coverings  may 
as  well  be  said  as  clothes.  Luther  V^'^  also  a  noun  meaning  bed.  De  Wette 
makes  it  an  impersonal  verb  ;  a  bed  is  made  under  thee  with  vermin 
(gebcttet  i&t  unter  dir  mit  Gewiirm).  Gesenius  treats  it  as  a  mere  anomaly 
or  idiomatic  licence  of  construction.  (See  his  Heb.  Gr.  §  144,  a).  Kimchi's 
explanation  is  that  collective  nouns  admit  both  of  a  masculine  and  feminine 
construction.  Junius  and  others  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  practice  of 
embalming  ;  but  the  words  seem  naturally  only  to  suggest  the  common 
end  of  all  mankind,  even  the  greatest  not  excepted.  The  imagery  of  the 
clause  is  vividly  exhibited  in  Gill's  homely  paraphrase — "  nothing  but 
worms  over  him  and  worms  under  him,  worms  his  bed  and  worms  his  bed- 
clothes"— or  as  Ewald  expresses  it,  with  a  curious  allusion  to  the  domestic 
usages  of  Germany,  "  worms,  instead  of  silk,  becoming  his  under  and  his 


Vek.  12.]  ISAIAH  XIV.  205 

upper  bed." — The  expression  is  not  strengthened  but  weakened  by  Lowth's 
interrogations,  which  are  besides  entirely  arbitrary.  As  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage has  a  form  to  express  interrogation,  it  is  not  to  be  assumed  in  the 
absence  of  this  form  without  necessity. 

12.  Hoiv  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven,  Lucifer,  son  of  the  morning — 
felled  to  the  ground,  thou  that  didst  lord  it  over  the  nations.  In  the  two 
other  places  where  ?'?.''n  occurs  (Ezek.  xxi.  17,  xi.  2),  it  is  an  imperative 
signifying  howl.  This  sense  is  also  put  upon  it  here  by  the  Peshito, 
Aquila,  Jerome  in  his  commentary,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis.  "  Howl,  son  of 
the  morning,  for  thy  fall."  Von  Colin  makes  the  clause  a  parenthetical 
apostrophe — "  How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven,  0  king — howl,  son  of  the 
morning,  for  his  fall !  "  The  first  construction  mentioned  was  originally 
given  by  RosenmUller  and  Gesenius,  both  of  whom  afterwards  adopted 
another,  found  in  all  the  ancient  versions  but  the  Syriac,  in  all  the  leading 
Rabbins,  and  in  most  of  the  early  Christian  writers.  This  interpreta- 
tion makes  the  word  a  derivative  of  ?7.y}  to  shine,  denoting  bright  one, 
or  more  specifically  bright  star,  or  according  to  the  ancients  more  speci- 
fically still  the  morning  star  or  harbinger  of  daylight,  called  in  (iireek 
euaipooog  and  in  Latin  lucifer.  The  same  derivation  and  interpretation 
is  adopted  by  the  latest  German  writers,  except  that  they  read  py'D  to  avoid 
the  objection,  that  there  is  no  such  form  of  Hebrew  nouns  as  ^^.T!,  and 
that  where  this  form  does  occur,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  confessedly  a  verb. 
Tertullian  and  other  fathers,  Gregory  the  Great,  and  the  scholastic  com- 
mentators, regarding  Luke  x.  18  as  an  explanation  of  this  verse,  apply  it 
to  the  fall  of  Satan,  from  which  has  arisen  the  popular  perversion  of  the 
beautiful  name  Lucifer  to  signify  the  Devil.  Erroneous  as  this  exposition 
is,  it  scarcely  deserves  the  severe  reprehension  which  some  later  commen- 
tators give  it  who  receive  with  great  indulgence  exegetical  hypotheses  much 
more  absurd.  In  the  last  clause  Knobel  makes  the  Prophet  represent  the 
morning  star  as  cut  out  from  the  solid  vault  of  heaven,  a  convincing  proof, 
of  course,  that  the  sacred  writers  entertained  absurd  ideas  of  the  heavenly 
bodies.  All  other  wi'iters  seem  agreed  that  in  the  last  clause  the  figure  of 
a  prostrate  tree  succeeds  that  of  a  fallen  star.  Clericus,  Vitringa,  and 
several  other  Latin  writers,  introduce  another  verb  between  ^ly^J3  and 
}*1f<?  (^excisus  dejectus  in  terram),  on  the  ground  that  these  do  not  cohere. 
In  our  idiom,  however,  there  is  no  need  of  supplying  any  thing,  to  fell  or 
cut  doivn  to  the  ground  .being  equally  good  Hebrew  and  English.  Junius 
and  Tremellius  give  to  ^'7)'^  a  passive  or  neuter  sense,  as  in  Job  xiv.  10, 
and  make  the  clause  comparative — weakened  above  {i.  e.  more  than)  the 
nations.  It  is  commonly  explained,  however,  as  a  description  of  the 
Babylonian  tyranny.  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  understand  the  image  to  be 
that  of  a  tree  overspreading  other  nations,  as  in  Ezek.  xxxi.  6,  17.  Gese- 
nius and  Umbreit,  with  the  older  writers,  give  tJ^^H  the  sense  of  weakening, 
subduing,  or  discomfiting,  as  in  Exod.  xvii.  13.  The  ^V  is  then  a  mere 
connective  like  the  English  preposition  in  the  phrase  to  triumph  over  or  to 
lord  it  over.  Cocceius  regards  it  as  an  elliptical  expression  for  /V  Tii^{< — 
oppressing  those  who  were  over  the  nations — and  applies  it  to  the  tyranny  of 
the  papal  see  over  the  monarchies  of  Europe,  after  specifying  some  of  which 
he  adds  with  great  naivete,  longtmi  esset  in  omnia  ire.  Vitringa  adopts  the 
same  construction  of^V  '^'T'Ti,  but  applies  the  verse  to  the  literal  king  of  Baby- 
lon. J.  H.  Michaelis  takes  t^^lH  as  a  noun  (debilitate r),  which  removes 
the  difficulty  as  to  the  construction.    The  Peshito  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  gives 


296  ISAIAH  XIV.  [Ver.  13. 

to  KOn  the  unauthorised  sense  of  Qespising,  looking  down  upon.  Calvin 
adopts  an  ancient  Jewish  opinion  that  it  means  casting  lots  upon  the  nations, 
as  to  the  time  or  order  of  attack,  or  as  to  the  treatment  of  the  conquered, 

13.  His  fall  is  aggravated  by  the  impious  extravagance  of  his  preten- 
sions. And  (yet)  thou  hadst  said  in  thy  heart  (or  to  thyself) — the  heavens 
ivill  I  mount  (or  scale) — above  the  stars  of  God  ivill  I  raise  my  throne — and 
I  u-ill  sit  in  the  mount  of  ineeting  (or  assonhhj) — in  the  sides  of  the  north. 
It  is  universally  agreed  that  he  is  here  described  as  aiming  at  equality  with 
God  himself.  Grotius  understands  by  heaven  the  land  of  Judah,  and  by 
stars  the  doctors  of  the  law.  Vitringa  explains  heaven  to  be  the  sanctuary, 
and  stars  the  priests.  Cocceius  applies  the  whole  verse  to  the  usurpations 
of  the  Roman  See.  But  most  interpreters  receive  the  first  clause  in  its 
natural  meaning.  As  to  the  other,  there  are  two  distinct  interpretations, 
one  held  by  the  earl}'  writers,  the  other  by  the  modern  since  John  David 
Michaelis.  According  to  the  first,  1V.1D""iri  is  analogous  to  iyiO'?riN,  and 
denotes  the  mountain  where  God  agreed  to  meet  the  people,  to  commune 
with  them,  and  to  make  himself  known  to  them  (Exod.  xxv.  22,  xxix.  42, 43). 
Calvin  indeed  gives  to  "lyio  the  sense  of  testimony  or  covenant,  but  does 
not  differ  from  the  rest  as  to  the  application  of  the  phrase.  All  the  inter- 
preters, who  are  now  referred  to,  understand  by  "lyiO'in  mount  Ziou  or 
mount  Moriah.  Those  who  adopt  the  former  explanation  are  under  the 
necessity  of  explaining  sides  of  the  north  by  the  assumption  that  Zion  lay 
upon  the  north  side  of  Jerusalem,  which  is  expressly  taught  by  Kimchi 
(Dicn'  ]\V^b  ]t3  O),  Grotius,  Junius,  Clericus,  and  Lightfoot.  Others, 
admitting  the  notorious  fact  that  Zion  was  on  the  south  side  of  the  city, 
suppose  the  mountain  meant  to  be  Moriah,  lying  on  the  north  side  of 
Zion.  So  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Gataker,  and  others.  On  the  same  hypo- 
thesis, both  Zion  and  Moriah  might  have  been  included,  one  as  the  mount 
of  congregation  and  the  other  as  the  sides  of  the  north,  in  reference  to  the 
tabernacle  and  temple,  as  the  places  where  God's  presence  was  successively 
revealed.  According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  it  describes  the  king  of 
Babylon  as  insulting  God  by  threatening  to  erect  his  throne  upon  those 
consecrated  hills,  or  even  affecting  to  be  God,  like  antichrist,  of  whom 
Paul  says,  with  obvious  allusion  to  this  passage,  that  he  "  opposeth  and 
exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or  that  is  worshipped,  so 
that  he,  as  God,  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  shewing  himself  that  he  is 
God"  (2  Thcss.  ii.  4).  To  this  interpretation  three  objections  have  been 
urged.  1.  The  first  is  that  it  involves  an  anticlimax  unworthy  of  Isaiah. 
After  threatening  to  ascend  the  heavens  and  sm*mount  the  stars,  some- 
thing equally  or  still  more  aspiring  might  have  been  expected ;  but 
instead  of  this,  he  simply  adds,  I  will  sit  upon  mount  Zion  and  mount 
Moriah  north  of  it.  This  by  itself  can  have  little  weight,  partly  because 
it  is  a  mere  rhetorical  objection,  partly  because  it  supposes  Zion  and 
Moriah  to  be  mentioned  as  mere  hills,  whereas  they  are  referred  to  as 
the  residence  of  God,  and  by  his  presence  invested  with  a  dignity 
equal  at  least  to  that  of  clouds  and  stars.  2.  But  in  the  next  place  it 
is  urged  that  although  this  allusion  to  the  sacred  mountains  of  Jerusalem 
would  be  perfectly  appropriate  if  uttered  by  a  Jew,  it  is  wholly  mis- 
placed in  the  mouth  of  a  heathen,  the  rather  as  Isaiah  makes  the  heathen 
speak  elsewhere  in  accordance  with  their  own  superstitions,  and  not  in  the 
language  of  the  true  religion.  (See  chap.  x.  10  ;  xxxvi.  18,  19  ;  xxxvii,  12). 
In  weighing  this  objection,  due  allowance  should  be  made  for  the  facts,  that 
the  writer  is  himself  a  Hebrew,  writing  for  the  use  of  Hebrew  readers,  and 


Ver.  14.]  ISAIAH  XIV.  297 

that  the  conqueror,  in  uttering  such  a  threat,  would  of  course  have  reference 
to  the  behef  of  the  conquered,  and  might  therefore  naturally  threaten  to  rival 
or  excel  their  God  upon  his  chosen  ground.     3.  The  third  objection  is  that 
the  failure  of  these  impious  hopes  is  obviously  implied,  whereas  the  threat- 
ening to  take  possession  of  mount  Zion  and  Moriah  was  abundantly  ful- 
filled before  the  time  at  which  we  must  suppose  this  song  of  triumph  to 
be  uttered.     This  is  true,  so  far  as  the  mere  possession  of  the  ground  is 
concerned,  but  not  true  as  to  the  equality  with  God  which  tbe  conqueror 
expected  to  derive  from  it,  as  the  first  clause  clearly  shews.     He  had  said, 
I  will  sit  upon  the  sacred  hills,  and  thereby  be  the  equal  of  Jehovah  ;  but 
instead  of  this  he  is  brought  down  to  the  grave.     Whether  the  weight  of 
argument  preponderates  in  favour  of  the  old  interpretation  or  against  it,  that 
of  authority  is  now  altogether  on  the  side  of  the  new  one.     This,  as  originally 
stated  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  makes  the  Babylonian  speak  the  language  of  a 
heathen,  and  with  reference  to  the  old  and  wide-spread  oriental  notion  of  a 
very  high  mountain  in  the  extreme  north,  where  the  gods  were  believed  to 
reside,  as  in  the  Greek  Olympus.     This  is  the  Meru  of  the  Hindoo  mythology, 
and  the  Elborz  or  Elborj  of  the  old  Zend  books.     The  details  of  this  belief 
are  given  by  Gesenius  in  the  first  appendix  to  his  Commentary.     According 
to  J.  D.  Michaelis,  there  is  also  an  allusion  to  this  figment  in  the  mention 
of  the  stars,  which  were  supposed  to  rest  upon  the  summit  of  the  mountain. 
The  meaning  of  the  clause,  as  thus  explained,  is,  "  I  will  take  my  seat  among 
or  above  the  gods  upon  their  holy  mountain."     This  interpretation  is  sup- 
posed to  be  obscurely  hinted  in  the  Septuagint  Version  (Iv  o^n  v-^rikOj,  i-Trt  tA 
o'g?3  TO,  v-^riXa.  ra  -Tr^oi  ^ooiav)  and  in  the  similar  terms  of  the  Peshito.     Theo- 
doret  remarks  upon  the  verse,  that  the  highest  mountains  upon  earth  are 
said  to  be  those  separating  Media  and  Assyria,  meaning  the  highest  summits 
of  the  Caucasus.     The  Targum  also,  though  it  renders  "'Pi'^'in  mountain 
of  the  covenant,  translates  the  last  words  ^^312^;  '•D'^D  extremities  of  the  north. 
As  the  mj-thological  allusion  is  in  this  case  put  into  the  mouth  of  a  heathen, 
there  is  not  the  same  objection  to  it  as  in  other  cases  where  it  seems  to  be 
recognised  and  sanctioned  by  the  writer.     It  may  be  made  a  question,  how- 
ever, whether  the  diificulty  of  an  anticlimax  is  not  as  real  here  as  in  the 
other  case.     How  is  the  oriental  Olympus  any  more  in  keeping  wi>h  the 
skies  and  stars,  than  Zion  and  Moriah,  considered  as  the  dwelling  of  Jeho- 
vah ?     It  may  also  be  objected  that  the  usual  meaning  of  l^i^  is  here 
departed  from,  and  that,  according  to  Gesenius's  own   shewing  the  sacred 
mountain  of  the  Zend  and  Hindoo  books  is  not  in  the  extreme  north,  but 
in  the  very  centre  of  the  earth.     It  might  even  be  doubted  whether  ps^ 
TIDT'  means  the  extreme  north  at  all,  were  it  not  for  the  analogous  expres- 
sion in  ver.   15,  which  will  be  explained  below.     Notwithstanding  these 
objections,  all  the  recent  writers  have  adopted  this  hypothesis,  including 
Hengstenberg,  who  gives  the  same  sense  to  p2^;  TIST  iu  his  commentary 
on  Ps.  xlviii.  3.     Ewald  translates  "lyp'in  the  mountain  of  all  the  gods 
(im  Berge  aller  Giitter).     The  general  meaning  of  the  verse  is  of  course  the 
same  on  either  hypothesis.     It  is  characteristic  of  Knobel's  eagerness  to 
convict  the  sacred  writers  of  astronomical  blunders,  that  he  makes  the  simple 
phrase  above  the  stars  mean  on  the  upper  side  of  the  vault  as  the  stars  are 
on  the  under  side.     The  expression  stars  of  God  does  not  merely  describe 
them  as  his  creatures,  but  as  being  near  him,  in  the  upper  world  or  heaven. 
14.  Iivill  mount  above  the  cloud- heights  ;  I  xoiil  make  myself  like  the  Most 
High:     This  is  commonly  regarded  as  a  simple  expression  of  unbounded 
arrogance ;  but  Knobel  thinks  there  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  oriental  cus- 


\ 


298  ISAIAH  XIV.  [Ver.  15,  16. 

torn  of  calling  their  kings  gods,  or  to  the  fact  that  Syrian  and  Phenician  kings 
did  actually  so  describe  themselves  (Ezek.  xxviii.  2,  G,  9  ;  2  Mace.  ix.  12). 
According  to  Grotins  and  Vitringa,  the  singular  noun  3y  is  here  used  to 
designate  the  cloud  of  the  divine  presence  in  the  tabernacle  and  temple. 
This  would  agree  well  with  the  old  interpretation  of  ver.  13  ;  but,  accord- 
ing to  the  other  hypothesis,  3^  is  a  collective,  meaning  clouds  in  general. 
Hendewerk  describes  this  as  a  literal  explanation  of  the  foregoing  figures. 
It  is  commonly  regarded  as  a  continuation  of  them.  Some  understand  him 
to  mean  that  he  will  ride  upon  the  clouds  as  his  chariot ;  but  Geseuius,  that 
he  will  control  the  clouds,  as  conquerors  are  elsewhere  said  to  ride  on  the 
heights  of  the  earth  (chap.  Iviii.  14;  Deut.  xxxii.  13,  xxxiii.  29;  Micah.  i.  3). 
Some  suppose  cloud  to  denote  a  multitude,  as  in  the  phrase  a  cloud  of  wit- 
nesses (Heb.  xii.  1),  and  so  understand  the  Chaldce  Paraphrase  {^'^V  73), 
which  appears,  however,  to  be  only  another  method  of  expressing  the  idea  of 
superiority.  Gill  thinks  that  the  clouds  may  be  the  ministers  of  the  word. 
Cocceius  makes  it  mean  the  word  itself,  and  the  ascent  above  them  the  sup- 
pression of  the  Scriptures  and  their  subordination  to  tradition  by  the  Church 
of  Rome,  from  which  he  draws  the  inference  that  the  Pope  is  not  the  ^-icar 
of  Christ,  but  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  adds  with  great  simplicity,  "  non 
morabimur  in  his,  qua  sunt  evidentia,  diutius."  As  HlS'nx  is  a  reflexive 
form  (Gesen.  §  53,  2),  it  means  not  merely  /  will  he  like,  but  /  will  make 
myself  like,  or  as  Michaelis  supposes,  I  tvill  act  like.  Sanctius  understands 
him  as  declaring  that  he  will  work  miracles  as  God  had  done  so  often  from 
the  clouds.  As  P  vj?  was  a  term  also  used  by  the  Phenicians  to  denote  the 
supreme  God,  Henderson  regards  it  here  as  specially  emiDhatic.  "  Not 
satisfied  with  making  himself  equal  to  any  of  the  inferior  deities,  his  ambi- 
tion led  him  to  aspire  after  an  equality  with  the  supreme."  He  also 
observes  that  the  use  of  this  term  does  not  imply  that  the  king  of  Babylon 
was  a  monotheist,  since  in  all  the  modifications  of  polytheism,  one  god  has 
been  regarded  as  superior  to  the  rest. 

15.  But  instead  of  being  exalted  to  heaven,  thou  shah  only  he  hrought 
down  to  hell — (not  to  the  sides  of  the  north,  but)  to  the  depths  of  the  jiit. 
■^IN  has  its  proper  sense  of  ouhj  (Winer  s.  v.)  but  in  order  to  accommodate 
the  idiom  of  other  tongues  variously  rendered  hut  (Lowth),  yes  (J.  D. 
Michaelis),  no  (Ewald)  &c.  Some  interpreters  observe  that  VlN^  is  here  con- 
founded with  the  grave — others  that  ^^^^  ^^^"st  have  the  sense  of  1'')iiW,  opposite 
deductions  from  the  same  parallehsm.  The  correct  view  of  the  matter  is  taken 
by  Kjiobel,  who  observes  that  the  idea  of  ^I^^P*  itself  is  originally  nothing 
more  than  that  of  the  grave,  so  that  the  two  run  into  one  another,  without 
any  attempt  to  discriminate  precisely  what  belongs  exclusively  to  either. 
{Vide  supra,  ad  v.  9.)  Against  the  strict  application  of  the  last  clause  to  the 
grave  is  the  subsequent  description  of  the  royal  body  as  unburied.  But  the 
imagery  is  unquestionably  borrowed  from  the  grave, — Clericus  and  Barnes 
understand  by  sides  the  horizontal  excavations  in  the  oriental  sepulchres  or 
catacombs.  But  according  to  its  probable  etymolog}'  the  Hebrew  word  does 
not  mean  sides  in  the  ordinary  sense,  but  rather  hinder  parts  aud  ihcu  remote 
parts  or  ej-tremities,  as  it  is  explained  by  the  Targum  here  and  in  ver.  18. 
The  specific  reference  may  be  either  to  extreme  height,  extreme  distance,  or 
extreme  depth,  according  to  the  context.  Here  the  last  sense  is  required  by 
the  mention  of  the  pit,  and  the  word  is  accordingly  translated  in  the  Vul- 
gate j»y>/h;h/j/w,  and  in  the  Scptuagint  more  freely  ra  Sf.asX/a. 

16.  Those  seeing  thee  shall  yaze  (or  stare)  at  thee,  they  shall  look  at  thee 


Ver.  17.j  ISAIAH  XIV.  29^ 

attentively,  (and  say)  Is  this  the  man  that  made  the  earth  shake,  that  made 
kingdoms  tremble  ?    IJmbreit,  Knobel,  and  others  suppose  the  Prophet  to  be 
still  describing  the  reception  of  the  king  in  the  world  below.     Gill,  on  the 
contrary,  says  "these  are  the  words  of  the  dead,  speaking  of  the  lining, 
when  they  should  see  the  carcase  of  the  king  of  Babylon  lying  on  the 
ground."     This  agrees  much  better  with  the  subsequent  context;  but  the 
simplest  and  most  natural  supposition  is  that  the  scene  in  the  other  world 
is  closed,  and  that  the  Prophet,  or  triumphant  Israel,  is  now  describing 
what  shall  take  place  above  ground.     The  gazing  mentioned  in  the  first 
clause  is  not  merely  the  efiect  of  curiosity,  but  of  incredulous  surprise.     The 
Vulgate  gives  •irT'r^^  the  specific  sense  of  stooping  down   (incUnabuntui*)  in 
order  to  examine  more  attentively.     J.  D.  Michaelis  strangely  ascribes  to  it 
the  sense  of  regarding  with  tender  sjTupathy,  which  is  as  arbitrary  as  Cal- 
vin's favourite  notion  of  derision,  here  repeated  (iterum  propheta  regem  de- 
ridet),  and  faithfully  copied  by  the  later  -writers.     The  prominent  if  not  the 
only  feeling  here  expressed  is  neither  scorn  nor  pity,  but  astonishment. 
•lJ3i2Jp?  is  supposed  to  be  descriptive  of  the  salutary  influence  on  the  specta- 
tors, by  Clericus  (prudente  se  gerent)  and  Augusti  (an  deinem  Beyspiele 
Mug  werden),  and  the  same  idea  seems  to  be  expressed   by  Aben  Ezra 
("Pl^-S  ^^'-^  )7)'i''C')-    But  the  usual  sense  of  paying  strict  attention  is  much 
more  appropriate.     Henderson's  idea  that  the  Hithpael  of  p^  means  to  con- 
sider and  reconsider,  as  if  unable  to  believe  one's  senses,  is  not  justified  by 
usage,  and  appears  to  be  founded  on  a  misapprehension  of  a  remark  by 
Hitzig,  who  attaches  the  same  meaning  not  to  the  peculiar  form  of  one  verb 
but  to  the  junction  of  the  two.     Gesenius  and  De  Wette  weaken  the  second 
clause  by  changing  its  idiomatic  form  for  a  more  modern  one,  be/ore  irhom 
the  earth  shook,  kingdoms  trembled.     Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  Hendewerk,  re- 
store the  original  construction. 

17.  Made  a  (fruitful  or  habitable)  ii:orld  like'jhe  desert,  destroyed  its  cities, 
and  its  captives  did  not  set  free  homewards.  These  are  still  the  words  of  the 
astonished  spectators  as  they  behold  the  body  of  the  slain  king.  The  con- 
trast in  the  first  clause  is  heightened  b}^  supposing  an  intentional  allusion 
to  the  primary  meaning  of  ?5Jil,  as  expressed  by  Cocceius  (frugiferam)  and 
Junius  (orbem  habitalem).  The  version  inhabited  land,  given  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis  and  xiugusti,  would  be  still  better  but  for  the  constant  usage  of 
^3^1  as  an  equivalent  to  Y'}^^  in  its  widest  sense.  Hitzig  observes  that  ?^B 
must  be  taken  as  a  masculine  noun,  in  order  to  account  for  the  suflis  in 
V^;i?,  which  cannot  be  referred  to  the  king  like  that  in  1''"^P^.  If  so,  it  is 
better  to  refer  the  latter  also  to  the  same  antecedent  for  the  sake  of  uni- 
formity, as  Knobel  does,  since  they  may  just  as  well  be  said  to  belong  to 
the  world  as  the  cities.  But  the  same  end  may  be  gained,  and  the  anomaly 
of  gender  done  away,  by  referring  both  the  pronouns  to  the  king  himself, 
who  might  just  as  well  be  said  to  have  destroyed  his  own  cities  as  his  own 
land  and  his  own  peojole  (ver.  20),  the  rather  as  his  sway  is  supposed  to  have 
been  universal.  The  construction  of  the  last  clause  is  somewhat  difficult. 
The  general  meaning  evidently  is  that  he  did  not  release  his  prisoners,  and 
this  is  expressed  in  a  general  way  by  the  Septuagint  and  Peshito.  The 
'Targum  reads,  %vho  did  not  open  the  door  to  his  captives  ;  the  Vulgate  more 
exactly,  the  pnson  (carcerem).  This  construction  supplies  a  preposition 
before  captives,  and  regards  the  termination  of  rin*3  as  merely  paragogic. 
Junius  and  TremelUus  understand  it  as  the  local  or  directive  n,  and  make 
the  word  mean  home  or  homewards  (non  solvebat  reversui'os  domum). 
This  construction  is  adopted  by  Henderson  and  others,  who  suppose  the 


800  ISAIAH  XIV.  [Yke.  18,  19. 

same  ellipsis  of  the  verb  return  or  send  before  the  last  word.  But  the  otber 
recent  versions  follow  De  Dieu  in  connecting  nns  directly  with  nn*3,  with- 
out sui)plying  anything,  and  giving  to  the  verb  itself  the  sense  of  releasing 
or  dismissing.  This  construction  is  also  given  in  the  margin  of  the  English 
Bible  (did  not  let  his  prisoners  loose  hometunrds),  while  the  text  coincides 
with  the  Vulgate  {opened  not  the  house  of  his  prisoners) . 

18.  All  kings  of  nations,  all  of  them,  lie  in  state  (or  glon'),  each  in  his 
house.  There  is  here  a  special  reference  to  the  peculiar  oriental  feeling 
with  respect  to  burial.  Diodorus  says  that  the  Eg}i^^)tians  paid  far  more 
attention  to  the  dwellings  of  the  dead  than  of  tlie  living.  Some  of  the 
greatest  national  works  have  been  intended  for  this  purpose,  such  as  the 
pjTamids,  the  temple  of  Belus,  and  the  cemetery  at  Persepolis.  The  en- 
virons of  Jerusalem  are  full  of  ancient  sepulchres.  The  want  of  burial  is 
spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  disgraceful  even  to  a  private  person  (1  Kings 
xiii.  22),  much  more  to  a  sovereign  (2  Chron,  xxi.  20,  xxxiv.  21).  The 
ancient  oriental  practice  of  burying  above  ground  and  in  solid  structures, 
often  reared  by  those  who  were  to  occupy  them  (vide  infra,  chap.  xxii.  16) 
will  account  for  the  use  of  house  here  in  the  sense  of  sepulchre,  without  sup- 
posing any  reference  to  the  burial  of  kings  within  their  palaces.  O^Zl  is  not 
used  elsewhere  absolutely  in  the  same  sense,  but  the  gi-ave  is  called  ri''3 
n%  (Eccles.  xii.  5)  and  'rh^h  lyiD  n^3  (Job  xxx.  23),  the  first  of  which 
phrases  is  copied  in  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase  of  that  before  us  (iT'Dpy  n^a3). 
Henderson's  version,  lie  in  state,  may  seem  appropriate  to  burial,  but  is  in 
fact  happily  descriptive  of  the  oriental  method  of  sepulture.  Lowth's  ver- 
sion, lie  doun,  gives  too  active  a  meaning  to  the  verb,  which  is  intended  to 
describe  the  actual  condition  of  the  dead.  The  words  of  this  verse  might 
possibly  be  understood  to  describe  the  generality  of  kings  as  dying  in  tbeir 
beds  and  at  home — ihr)/  have  hdn  doini,  (i.e.)  died  each  in  his  own  house. 
But  there  is  no  need  of  dissenting  from  the  imanimous  judgment  of  inter- 
preters, that  the  verse  relates  to  burial.  Knobel  supposes  a  specific  allusion 
to  the  kings  whom  the  deceased  had  conquered  or  oppressed  ;  but  nothing 
more  is  necessarily  expressed  by  the  words  than  the  general  practice  with 
respect  to  royal  bodies. 

19.  With  the  customary  burial  of  kings  he  now  contrasts  the  treatment 
of  the  Babylonian's  body.  And  thou  art  cast  out  from  thij  tjravc — like 
a  despised  branch,  the  raiment  of  the  slain,  pierced  with  the  snvrd,  going 
down  to  the  stones  of  the  pit,  (even)  like  a  trampled  carcass  (as  thou  art). 
Gesenius  and  the  other  modern  writers  understand  the  Prophet  as  con- 
trasting the  neglect  or  exposure  of  the  royal  body  with  the  honourable 
burial  of  the  other  slain,  those  who  are  (soon)  to  go  down  to  the  stones 
of  the  grave,  /'.  e.  to  be  buried  in  hewn  sepulchres.  Hitzig  understands  by 
the  stones  of  the  pit,  the  stones  which  closed  the  mouths  of  the  sepulchres, 
— Henderson,  stone  coffins  or  sarcophagi — Knobel,  the  ordinary  stone  tombs 
of  the  east  resembling  altars.  All  these  interpreters  follow  Cocceius  in 
explaining  t.*'3?  as  a  passive  participle,  clothed  (»'.  e.  covered)  with  the  slain, 
which  may  also  be  the  meaning  of  the  Vulgate  version,  obvolutus  cum  his 
qui  interfecti  sunt  gladio.  But  this  form  of  expression,  covered  with  the 
slain  who  are  buried  in  stone  scpidchres,  is  rather  descriptive  of  a  commoU 
burial  than  of  any  invidious  distinction.  It  is  much  more  natural  to  under- 
stand 113  *3?N  ?{<  n")V  as  a  description  of  the  indiscriminate  interment  of  a 
multitude  of  slain  in  a  common  grave,  such  as  a  pit  containing  stones  or 
filled  with  stones  to  cover  the  bodies.     The  reference  assumed  bv  the  Dutch 


Vee.  20.]  ISAIAH  XIV.  301 

Amiotators  and  Doederlein,  to  the  covering  of  tlie  slain  with  atones  upon 
the  surface  of  the  earth,  is  forbidden  by  the  terms  (loinfi  doun  and  pit.  The 
explanation  just  proposed  would  be  consistent  either  with  Cocceius's  inter- 
pretation of  '^'.^?  or  with  the  older  one  which  makes  it  as  usual  a  noun 
meaning  raiment,  and  supplies  the  particle  of  comparison  before  it.  In  the 
latter  case,  the  direct  comparison  is  not  with  the  bodies  of  the  common  dead, 
but  with  their  blood-stained  garments,  as  disgusting  and  abhorrent  objects. 
As  lytp  occm-s  elsewhere  only  in  Gen.  xlv.  17,  where  it  means  to  load, 
Cocceius  here  translates  it  onmtis  f/ladio,  and  Junius  onuslonim  (creJrris 
ictibus)  rjladil.  The  latter  writer  adopts  the  Rabbinical  derivation  of  the 
■word  from  a  cognate  root  in  Arabic,  which  means  to  pierce  or  perjorate. 
The  kind  of  death  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  particularly  mentioned,  in 
order  to  account  for  the  staining  of  the  garments.  By  3Jjn?  "iV?.  Lowth  un- 
derstands a  tree  on  which  a  malefactor  had  been  hung,  and  wh'ch  was 
therefore  looked  upon  as  cursed  (Deut.  xxi.  23  ;  Gal.  iii.  13),  and  according 
to  Maimonides  was  buried  with  him.  This  ingenious  combination  accoimts 
for  the  use  of  the  strong  word  "^"^JS^.,  which  is  scarcely  applicable  to  the  use- 
less or  even  troublesome  and  noxious  branches  that  are  thrown  aside  and 
left  to  rot.  To  remove  the  same  difficulty,  J.  D.  Michaelis  gives  IVJ  the 
supposititious  sense  of  xdcer,  here  put  for  a  leprous  body.  Some  suppose 
"IV^.  to  be  here  used,  as  in  chap.  xi.  1,  with  a  genealogical  allusion,  the  de- 
spised branch  or  scion  of  a  royal  stock.  T^^iTP  is  explained  by  Gesenius 
and  Maurer  to  mean  simply  without  a  grave,  by  Hitzig  and  I{jiobel  awmj 
from  thy  grave,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  not  been  in  it.  This  prosaic 
objection  has  not  hindered  Ewald  from  using  the  expressive  phrase  out  of 
thy  grave,  which  is  no  more  incorrect  or  unintelligible  than  it  is  to  speak  of 
an  heir  as  being  deprived  of  his  estate,  or  a  king's  son  of  his  crowii,  before 
they  are  in  actual  possession.  Henderson  even  goes  so  far  as  to  deny  that 
P  depends  upon  the  verb  at  all,  a  statement  equally  at  variance  with  usa^e 
and  the  Masoretic  accents.  In  order  to  reconcile  this  verse  with  the  history 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  to  w^hom  they  exclusively  apply  it,  the  Jews  have  an 
old  tradition,  given  not  only  in  the  Seder  01am  but  by  Jerome  in  almost 
the  same  words,  that  when  Nebuchadnezzar  recovered  his  reason,  he  found 
Evilmerodach  his  son  upon  the  throne,  and  threw  him  into  jwison.  When 
the  father  died,  the  son  refused  to  become  king  again,  lest  his  predecessor 
should  again  return  ;  and  in  order  to  convince  him  of  the  old  man's  death, 
the  body  was  disinterred  and  exposed  to  public  view.  That  the  terms  of 
the  prediction  were  literally  fultilled  in  the  last  king  of  Babylon,  Nabonned 
or  Belshazzar,  is  admitted  by  Gesenius  to  be  highly  probable,  from  the 
hatred  with  which  this  avoaiog  [SaotXiuc  (as  Xenophon  calls  him)  was  re- 
garded by  the  people.  Such  a  supposition  is  not  precluded  by  the  same 
historian's  statement  that  Cyrus  gave  a  general  permission  to  bury  the 
dead  ;  for,  as  Henderson  observes,  his  silence  in  relation  to  the  king 
rather  favours  the  conclusion  that  he  was  made  an  exception,  either  by  the 
people  or  the  conqueror.  There  is  no  need,  however,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  of  seeking  historical  details  in  this  passage,  which  is  rather  a  pre- 
diction of  the  downfall  of  the  empire  than  of  the  fate  of  any  indi^adual 
monarch. 

■  20.  Thou  shalt  not  he  joined  with  them  (the  other  kings  of  the  nations) 
in  burial,  because  thy  land  thou  hast  destroyed,  thy  23eople  thou  hast  slain. 
Let  the  seed  of  evil-doers  be  named  no  more  for  ever.  Gesenius  and  other 
recent  writers  think  the  reference  to  the  kings  in  ver.  18  too  remote,  and 
this  is  one  principal  reason  for  interpreting  ver.  19  in  the  way  akeady 


ISAIAH  XIV.  [Ver.  21. 

mentioned,  as  exhibiting  a  contrast  between  those  who  receive  burial  and 
those  who  do  not.  The  sense  of  this  verse  then  will  be,  thou  shall  not  he 
joined  with  them,  i.  e.  with  those  who  go  down  to  the  stones  of  the  grave. 
But  the  remoteness  of  the  antecedent  in  ver,  18,  ceases  to  occasion  any 
difficulty  when  the  whole  of  the  nineteenth  verse  is  a  description  of  the 
king's  unburicd  and  exposed  condition.  On  this  hypothesis,  ver,  18  de- 
scribes the  state  of  other  deceased  kings;  ver.  19,  the  very  different  state  of 
this  one,  and  ver,  20  di'aws  the  natural  inference,  that  the  latter  cannot  be 
joined  in  burial  with  the  former.  Instead  of  thy  land  and  thy  people,  the 
Septuagint  has  my  land  and  my  people,  making  the  clause  refer  directly  to 
the  Babylonian  conquest  and  oppression  of  Judea.  Jerome  suggests  that 
the  same  sense  may  be  put  upon  the  common  text  by  making  thy  land  and 
thy  people  mean  the  land  and  people  subjected  to  thy  power  in  execution  of 
God's  righteous  judgments.  But  the  only  natural  interpretation  of  the 
words  is  that  which  applies  them  to  the  Babylonian  tyranny  as  generally 
exercised.  The  charge  here  brought  against  the  king  implies  that  his 
power  was  given  him  for  a  very  different  purpose.  The  okler  writers  read 
the  last  clause  as  a  simple  prediction.  Thus  the  English  Version  is,  the 
seed  of  evil-doers  shall  never  be  renowned.  But  the  later  writers  seem  to 
make  it  more  emphatic  by  giving  the  future  the  force  of  an  imperative  or 
optative.  For  the  sense  of  Q^V^P  O  vide  supra,  chap.  i.  4.  Hitzig  and 
Henderson  take  V^].  even  here  in  the  sense  of  a  race  or  generation,  and  sup- 
pose N"!)!^^  to  refer  to  monumental  inscriptions.  Some  of  the  older  writers 
understand  the  clause  to  mean  that  the  names  of  the  wicked  shall  not  be 
perpetuated  by  transmission  in  the  line  of  their  descendants.  Others  ex- 
plain the  verb  as  meaning  to  be  called,  /.  e.  proclaimed  or  celebrated.  It 
is  now  pretty  generally  understood  to  mean,  or  to  express  a  wish,  that  the 
posterity  of  such  should  not  be  spoken  of  at  all,  implying  both  extinction 
and  oblivion. 

21.  That  the  downfall  of  the  Babylonian  power  shall  be  perpetual,  is 
now  expressed  by  a  command  to  slaughter  the  children  of  the  king.  Pre- 
pare  for  his  sons  a  slaiiyhtcr,  for  the  iniipdty  of  their  fathers.  Let  them  not 
arise  and  possess  the  earth,  and  Jill  the  face  of  the  world  trith  cities.  This 
verse  is  regarded  by  Gcsenius,  Roseumiiller,  Maurer,  and  Umbreit,  as  the 
close  of  the  triumphal  song  beginning  in  ver.  4.  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk 
suppose  it  to  have  closed  in  the  preceding  verse,  as  the  address  is  no  longer 
to  the  king  of  Babylon.  Ewald  extends  it  through  ver.  23.  But  these 
distinctions  rest  upon  a  false  assumption  of  exact  and  artificial  structure. 
The  dramatic  form  of  the  prediction  is  repeatedly  shifted,  so  that  the  words 
of  the  triumphant  Jews,  of  the  dead,  of  the  Prophet,  and  of  God  himself, 
succeed  each  other,  as  it  were,  insensibly,  and  without  any  attempt  to  make 
the  points  of  the  transition  prominent.  The  command  in  the  first  clause 
is  not  addressed  specifically  to  the  Medes  and  Persians,  but  more  indefi- 
nitely to  the  executioners  of  God's  decree  against  Babylon,  or,  as  Calvin 
calls  them,  his  Uctores  aut  carni/ices.  The  reference  is  not  to  the  children 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  or  Belshazzar,  as  the  Rabbins  and  others  have  assumed, 
but  to  the  progeny  of  the  ideal  being  who  here  represents  the  Babylonian 
monarch.  Hitzig,  Umbreit,  and  Hendewerk,  make  natpp  mean  a  place  of 
slaughter  (Schlachtbank),  after  the  analogy  of  the  cognate  form  H^TP. 
Gesenius  and  Ewald  give  it  the  general  sense  of  massacre  (Blutbad).  There 
are  three  constructions  of  the  last  clause  authorised  by  usage.  -IN^D  may 
agree  either  with  D""?!?,  or  with  ■•?.?,  or  with  V33.  The  last  is  entitled  to 
the  preference,  because  it  is  the  subject  of  the  two  preceding  verbs.    Cocceius, 


Ver.  22,  23.J  ISAIAH  XIV.  303 

Hendewerk,  Umbreit,  aud  others  make  this  last  clause  the  expression  of  a 
hope  or  a  promise — and  (then)  the  world  will  (again)  be  full  of  cities — or, 
that  the  world  maj'  (again)  be  full  of  cities.  Gesenius,  who  ascribes  this 
construction  to  Von  Ccilln,  objects  that  it  gives  to  ??  one  half  of  its  mean- 
ing [that),  and  rejects  the  other  half  {not).  But  the  subjunctive  construc- 
tion of  the  clause  is  a  mere  assimilation  to  the  forms  of  occidental  syntax. 
The  Hebrew  construction  is,  they  shall  not  arise  (or  let  them  not  arise), 
and  the  negative  may  either  be  confined  to  the  first  two  verbs  or  extended 
to  the  third.     The  last,  however,  is  more  natural  on  account  of  the  exact 

resemblance  in  the  form  of  the  two  members,  X")^  -1^'^^  and  ^3n"''JQ  -iNpO. 

The  Targum,  followed  by  the  Rabbins,  gipes  to  Qliy  the  sense  of  enemies, 
as  in  1  Sam.  xxviii.  16,  Ps.  cxxxix.  20,  and  fill  the  face  of  the  world  with 
enemies — or  enemies  fill  the  face  of  the  world.  This  meaning  of  the  word 
is  adopted  by  Vitringa,  Gesenius,  Rosenmiiller,  and  others.  Hitzig  reads 
D^^y,  ruins ;  Ewald,  D'^fny,  tyrants ;  Knobel,  D^yi,  wicked  ones.  The  best  sense, 
on  the  whole,  is  aftbrded  by  the  old  interpretation  given  by  the  Vulgate  and 
Saadias,  and  retained  by  Umbreit  and  Hendewerk,  which  takes  D''"'!?  in  its 
usual  sense  as  the  plm-al  of  1''^,  and  understands  the  clause  to  mean,  lest  they 
overspread  and  colonise  the  earth.  The  objection  that  the  Babylonians  had 
been  just  before  described  as  wasters  and  destroyers,  cannot  weigh  against 
the  constant  usage  of  the  word. 

22.  This  verse  contains  an  intimation  that  the  destruction  just  predicted 
is  to  be  the  work  not  of  man  merely  but  of  God,  and  is  to  comprehend 
not  only  the  royal  family  but  the  whole  population.  And  I  {myself)  will 
rise  up  against  them  (or  upon  them),saith  Jeliovah  of  hosts,  and  will  cut  o^ 

from  Babylon  (literally,  ivith  respect  to  Babylon)  name,  and  remnant,  and 
progeny,  and  offspring,  saith  Jehovah.  The  last  four  nouns  are  put  to- 
gether to  express  posterity  in  the  most  general  and  universal  manner.  |^J 
and  n23  occur  together  in  Gen.  xxi.  31,  Job  xviii.  19.  The  specific  mean- 
ing son  and  nephew  {i.e.  nepos,  grandson),  given  in  the  English  version  and 
most  of  the  early  wi'iters,  and  retained  by  Umbreit,  is  derived  from  the 
Chaldee  paraphrase  ("13  "121  "in).  Aben  Ezra  makes  the  language  still  more 
definite  by  explaining  DE^  to  be  a  man  himself,  "li^ti'  a  father,  PJ  a  son,  and 
'Jnj  a  gi-andson.  This  supposes  "l^<^  to  be  equivalent  in  meaning  to  "Iti'n  "1XK>, 
used  in  Lev.  xviii.  6,  xxv.  49,  for  a  blood  relation.  So  Montanus  renders  it 
here,  consangidneum.  But  the  word  which  has  that  sense  isof  a  different  form, 
and  according  to  Gesenius,  of  a  different  origin.  The  more  general  mean- 
ing of  the  terms,  now  held  to  be  correct,  is  given  in  the  Septuagint  {ovofia. 
•A.ai  v.a.'raXuiJjiia.  -/.a)  d'Trs^fxa)  and  the  Vulgate  (nomen  et  reliquias  et  germen 
et  progeniem),  Doederlein's  version,  the  fruitful  and  the  barren,  is  entirely 
unauthorised,  Grotius  remarks  upon  the  threatening  of  this  verse,  nempe 
ad  tempus  !  Cocceius  applies  this  verse  and  the  one  preceding  to  the  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  subject  to  the  Roman  see,  and  thinks  it  pro- 
bable that  |''J  and  1?5  may  be  distinctive  terms  for  bishops  and  kings.  The 
threatening  is  applied  by  other  classes  of  interpreters  to  Nebuchadnezzar 
and  Belshazzar,  but  most  correctly  to  the  king  of  Babylon,  not  as  a  collec- 
tive appellation  merely,  but  as  an  ideal  person  representing  the  whole  line 
of  kings.  The  agreement  of  the  prophecy  with  history  is  shewn  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis  from  the  facts,  that  none  of  the  ancient  royal  family  of  Babylon 
ever  regained  a  throne,  and  that  no  Babylonian  empire  ever  rose  after  the 
destruction  of  the  first,  Alexander  the  Great's  project  of  restoring  it  having 
been  defeated  by  his  death. 

23.  And  I  will  render  it  (literally,  place  it  for)  a  possession  (or  inheri- 


804  ISAIAH  XIV.  [Ver.  24. 

tance)  of  the  porcupine,  and  pools  of  water,  and  will  sweep  it  ivith  the  broom 
Cor  ht'soni)  of  chstmction.  iSp  lias  been  variously  explained  to  be  the  tor- 
toise, beaver,  bittern.  Sec,  but  since  Bocbart  it  is  commonh'  agi'eed  to  mean 
the  porcupine  or  hedgehog.  It  is  here  mentioned  only  as  a  solitary  animal 
frequenting  marshy  grounds.  The  construction  is  not,  I  will  make  the  pools 
of  water  a  possession,  &c.,  by  drying  them  up — nor,  I  will  make  it  a  posses- 
sion for  pools  of  water — but  I  will  make  it  a  possession  for  the  porcupine 
and  (will  convert  it  into)  pools  of  water.  The  exposure  of  the  level  plains 
of  Babylonia  to  continual  inundation  without  great  preventive  care,  and  the 
actual  promotion  of  its  desolation  by  this  vcrj-  cause,  are  facts  distinctly 
stated  by  the  ancient  writers.  Some  suppose  this  evil  to  have  had  its 
orif^in  in  the  diversion  of  the  waters  of  the  Euphrates  by  Cyrus.  The 
Septuagint  version  of  the  hist  clause  (xa/  ^rieu  avrr,)/  'rr/XoZ  (Suoad^o)^  iig 
avuJ.iiav),  adopted  with  little  variation  by  Clericus  (demergam  eam  in  pro- 
fundum  lutum  ut  eam  pcrdam).  and  by  Lowth  (I  will  plunge  it  in  the  miry 
gulf  of  destruction),  supposes  'HNDNta  to  be  derived  from  t3''t3,  clay  or  mire. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  refers  it  to  an  Arabic  root  meaning  to  sink  or  plunge,  and 
thus  excludes  the  allusion  to  mire  (in  den  Abgi'und  des  Nichts  versenken). 
Three  of  the  ancient  versions,  followed  by  the  Talmud  and  rabinnical  inter- 
preters, make  it  mean  to  sivcep,  which  is  adopted  by  the  latest  writers. 
Gesenius  formerly  derived  it  from  an  obsolete  root  N-IID,  but  in  his  Thesaurus 
from  t2''P,  supposing  the  verb  properly  to  mean  the  removal  of  dirt.  Thus 
Aben  Ezra  explains  NDND?:)  to  be  an  instrument  with  which  dirt  is  removed 
(in^Tri  \2  ^i'B'C  pjt^).  Lee,  from  an  Arabic  root,  explains  the  clause  to  mean, 
I  will  humble  it  with  the  humiliation  of  destruction  (Heb.  Lex.  s.  v).  The 
Yulf^ate  renders  "lOt^n  as  a  participle  (terens),  in  which  it  is  followed  by 
Calvin  [eraciiaus),  while  others  more  correctly  make  it  an  infinitive  or 
verbal  noun. 

24.  From  the  distant  view  of  the  destruction  of  Babylon,  the  Prophet 
suddenly  reverts  to  that  of  the  Assyrian  host,  either  for  the  pui-pose  of 
making  one  of  these  events  accredit  the  prediction  of  the  other,  or  for  the 
purpose  of  assuring  true  believers,  that  while  God  had  decreed  the  deliver- 
ance of  his  people  from  remoter  dangers,  he  would  also  protect  them  from 
those  near  at  hand.  Jehovah  cf  hosts  hath  sworn,  sayintj,  Surely  (literally, 
if  not)  as  I  have  planned  (or  imagined)  it  has  come  to  pass,  and  as  I  have 
devised,  it  shall  stand  (or  be  established).  On  the  elliptical  formula  of 
swearing,  vide  supra,  chap.  v.  9.  We  may  either  supply  before  N7  CX,  with 
Calvin  and  Vitringa,  let  me  not  be  recognised  as  God — or  as  Junius  briefly 
and  boldly  expresses  it,  mentiar — or  else  we  may  suppose  the  elliptical  ex- 
pression to  have  been  transferred  from  man  to  God,  without  regard  to  its 
ori<nnal  and"proper  import.  Kimchi  explains  nriTI  to  be  a  preterite  used  for 
a  future  (7'Py  p)pri3  12)))^  and  this  constraction  is  adopted  in  most  versions, 
ancient  and  modern.  It  is,  however,  altogether  arbitrary  and  in  violation  of 
the  only  safe  rule  as  to  the  use  ot  the  tenses,  viz.  that  they  should  have  their 
proper  and  distinctive  force  unless  forbidden  by  the  context  or  the  nature  of 
the  subject,  which  is  veiy  far  from  being  the  case  here,  as  we  shall  see  be- 
low. Gesenius  and  Pe  \Vette  evade  the  difficulty  by  rendering  both  the 
verbs  as  presents,  a  construction  which  is  often  admissible  and  even  necessar}' 
in  a  descriptive  context,  but  when  used  indiscriminately  or  inappropriately, 
tends  both  to  weaken  and  obscure  the  sense.  Ewald  and  Unibreit  make  the 
first  verb  present  and  the  second  future,  which  is  scarcely  if  at  all  less  objec- 
tionable. The  true  force  of  the  preterite  and  future  forais,  as  here  employed, 
is  recognised  by  Aben  Ezra,  who  explains  the  clause  to  mean  that  according 


V 


Ver.  24.]  ISAIAH  XIV.  305 

to  God's  purpose,  it  has  come  to  pass  and  will  come  to  pass  hereafter  (c^'^i  13 
7'Pi5i  D'O'  pi).  The  antithesis  is  rendered  still  more  prominent  by  Jarchi, 
by  whom  the  verse  is  paraphrased  as  follows — "  Thou  hast  seen,  0  Nebu- 
chadnezzar how  the  words  of  the  prophets  of  Israel  have  been  fulfilled  in 
Sennacherib,  to  break  Assyria  in  my  land,  and  by  this  thou  mayest  know 
that  what  I  have  purposed  against  thee  shall  also  come  to  pass."  (Compare 
Ezek.  xxxi.  3-18).  This  view  of  the  matter  makes  the  mention  of  Assyria 
in  this  connection  altogether  natural,  as  if  he  had  said,  of  the  truth  of  these 
predictions  against  Babylon  a  proof  has  been  aflbrded  in  the  execution  of 
the  threatenings  against  Assyria.  The  only  objection  to  it  is,  that  the  next 
verse  goes  on  to  speak  of  the  AssjTian  overthrow,  which  would  seem  to 
imply  that  the  last  clause  of  this  verse,  as  well  as  the  first,  relates  to  that 
event.  Another  method  of  expounding  the  verse,  therefore,  is  to  apply  nriTl 
and  Qlpn  to  the  same  events,  but  in  a  somewhat  different  sense — "  As  I 
intended,  it  has  come  to  pass,  and  as  I  purposed,  it  shall  continue."  The 
Assyrian  power  is  already  broken,  and  shall  never  be  restored.  This  strict 
interpretation  of  the  preterite  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the  prophecy 
was  actually  uttered  after  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army.  Such 
would  indeed  be  the  natural  inference  fi-om  this  verse  alone,  but  for  reasons 
which  will  be  explained  below,  it  is  more  probable  that  the  Prophet  merely 
takes  his  stand  in  vision  at  a  point  of  time  between  the  two  events  of  which 
he  speaks,  so  that  both  verbs  are  really  prophetic,  the  one  of  a  remote,  the 
other  of  a  proximate  futurity,  but  for  that  very  reason  their  distinctive  forms 
should  be  retained  and  recognised.  Yet  the  only  modern  writers  who 
appear  to  do  so  in  translation,  are  Calvin  and  Cocceius,  who  h2ixe  factum  est, 
and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who  has  ist  geschehen.  The  acute  and  learned,  but 
superficial  Clericus  jumps  to  the  conclusion  that  this  verse  begins  an  entirely 
new  prophecy,  a  dictum  eagerly  adopted  by  the  modern  German  critics, 
who  are  always  predisposed  to  favour  new  views  of  the  connection  and 
arrangement  of  the  text.  Rosenmiiller  represents  these  verses  as  a  fragment 
of  a  larger  "  poem  "  on  the  Assyrian  overthrow.  Gesenius  confidently  sets 
it  down  as  the  conclusion  or  continuation  of  the  tenth  chapter,  with  which  it 
exhibits  several  verbal  coincidences.  Hendewerk,  with  still  more  precision, 
gives  it  place  between  vers.  27  and  28  of  that  chapter.  Hitzig  and  Knobel 
put  it  after  the  twelfth  chapter,  and  regard  it  as  a  prophecy  of  later  date,  but 
having  direct  reference  to  that  in  chaps,  x.-xii.  Ewald  assigns  it  the  same 
relative  position,  but  interpolates  the  last  three  verses  of  the  seventeenth 
chapter  and  the  whole  of  the  eighteenth  between  the  twelfth  or  rather  the 
eleventh  (for  he  looks  upon  the  twelfth  as  spurious)  and  the  paragraph 
before  u%,  which  he  takes  to  be  the  winding  up  of  the  whole  prophec}'. 
The  first  thing  that  will  strike  the  reader  in  this  statement  is  the  principle 
assumed  by  all  the  hypotheses,  viz.,  that  similar  passages  must  belong 
together,  which  is  tantamount  to  saying  that  whatever  a  writer  had  to  say  upon 
a  certain  point,  or  in  a  certain  manner,  he  must  have  said  once  for  all  in  a 
single  and  continuous  composition.  On  the  same  ground  all  those  passages 
in  the  odes  of  Horace,  which  contain  the  praises  of  Augustus  or  Maecenas, 
might  be  brought  together  into  a  cento  of  endless  repetitions.  To  an  ordi- 
nary reader  it  is  scarcely  more  surprising  that  an  author  should  use  the  same 
expressions  in  two  different  productions,  than  that  he  should  repeat  them  in 
the  same.  But  even  if  the  principle  assumed  were  less  unreasonable  than 
it  is,  the  different  and  inconsistent  ways  in  which  it  is  applied,  and  the 
assurance  with  which  each  new-comer  puts  his  predecessors  in  the  wrong, 
VOL.  I.  u  . 


806  ISAIAH  XIV.  [Ver.  25, 

■will  satisfy  most  readers  that  conjectures  which  admit  of  being  varied  and 
multiplied  ad  lihilinn  must  needs  be  worthless.  This  conclusion  is  confirmed 
by  the  existence  of  a  strong  and  very  obvious  motive,  on  the  part  of  neolo- 
gical  interpreters,  for  severing  this  paragraph,  if  possible,  from  what  precedes. 
The  resemblance  of  these  verses  to  the  undisputed  writings  of  Isaiah  is  too 
strong  to  leave  a  doubt  as  to  their  origin.  If  left  then  in  connection  with 
the  previous  context,  they  establish  the  antiquity  and  authenticity  of  this 
astonishing  prediction  against  Babylon,  beyond  the  reach  of  cavil.  And  if 
this  be  admitted,  we  have  here  a  signal  instance  of  prophetic  foresight  exer- 
cised at  least  two  centuries  before  the  event.  This  conclusion  must  be 
avoided  at  all  cost  and  hazards,  and  the  sacrifice  of  taste  and  even  com- 
mon sense  is  nothing  in  comparison  with  such  an  object.  A  remote  design 
of  this  kind  may  frequently  be  traced  in  critical  decisions,  which,  to  super- 
ficial observation  or  to  blinded  admiration,  seem  to  be  determined  solely  by 
the  unbiassed  application  of  universal  laws.  In  the  case  before  us,  the 
unsoundness  of  the  principle,  its  arbitraiy  application,  and  the  evident 
appeai'ances  of  sinister  design,  all  conspire  to  recommend  the  old  view  of 
the  passage,  as  immediately  connected  with  the  previous  context,  which  is 
further  recommended  by  the  uniform  authority  of  Hebrew  manuscripts,  a 
constant  tradition,  the  grammatical  construction,  and  the  perfectly  coherent 
and  appropriate  sense  which  it  puts  upon  the  passage.  It  need  scarcely  be 
added  that  the  explanation  of  the  name  Assyria,  by  Lowth  and  others,  as 
denoting  or  at  least  including  the  Babylonian  dynasty,  is  here  entirely  un- 
tenable, because  it  is  unnecessary;  Where  the  proper  meaning  of  the  term 
is  so  appropriate,  it  is  worse  than  useless  to  assume  one  which  at  least  is 
rare  and  dubious. 

25.  He  now  declares  what  the  pm-pose  is,  which  is  so  certainly  to  be  ac- 
complished, namely  God's  determination  to  break  Assyria  (or  the  Assyrian) 
in  my  land,  and  on  my  mountains  I  uill  trample  him  ;  and  his  yoke 
shall  depart  from  off  them,  and  his  burden  from  off  his  back  {or  shoulder) 
shall  dqmrt.  The  infinitive  depends  upon  ^flVyj  in  the  verse  preceding,  and 
is  followed  by  a  finite  verb,  as  in  many  other  verses.  (See  for  example  chap. 
V.  24).  Barnes  continues  the  infinitive  construction  in  the  next  clause  {to 
remove,  &c.),  while  Gesenius,  on  the  other  hand,  assimilates  the  first  clause 
to  the  second  (Assyria  is  broken,  &c.),  both  which  are  gratuitous  departures 
from  the  form  of  the  original.  Forced  constructions  of  the  clause  are  given  by 
Junius  (whcnby  breaking,  Assyria,  &c.  I  shall  have  trampled  on  him,  then  shall 
his  yoke,  &c.)  and  by  Gataker  (as  by  breaking  Assyria,  &c.  I  trampled  en  him, 
60  that  his  yoke  and  burden  were  removed,  in  like  manner  Babylon  shall  be 
destroyed).  Hendewerk  makes  a  frivolous  objection  to  the  translation  of  lltl'^f 
by  Assyria,  viz.,  that  Assyria  never  was  in  Palestine.  The  use  of  the  names 
of  countries  to  denote  their  governments  and  even  their  armies  is  sufliciently 
familiar,  even  without  supposing  IIK'y  to  be  really  the  name  of  the  pro- 
genitor, like  Israel  and  Canaan.  My  mountains  some  have  understood  to  bo 
Mount  Zion,  others  more  generally  the  mountains  of  Jerusalem ;  but  it  seems 
to  be  rather  a  description  of  the  whole  lard  of  Israel,  or  at  least  of  Judah, 
as  a  mountainous  region.  (See  Ezek.  xxxviii.  21,  xxxix.  2,  4  ;  Zcch.  xii. 
15 ;  1  Kings  x.  23).  Calvin's  idea  that  this  term  is  used  because  the 
country  was  despised  as  a  mere  range  of  mountains,  seems  extremely  forced. 
Umbreit,  however,  also  understands  the  words  in  my  land  as  an  allusion  to 
the  contempt  of  foreigners  for  Palestine.  The  expressions  of  this  verse  bear 
a  sti-ong  resemblance  to  those  of  chaps,  ix.  3,  x.  27,  xxx.  30,  31,  xxxi.  8. 
Aben  Ezra  refers  the  plui-al  suffix  in  Dn^^y  to  land  and  mountains,  Grotius 


Vek.  26,  27.J  ISAIAH  XIV.  307 

to  the  latter  only  ;  but  the  true  construction  is  no  doubt  the  conimon  one, 
which  refers  it  to  the  people  of  Israel  collectively,  and  the  suffix  in  \^y^  to 
the  same  people  as  an  individual.  The  place  here  assigned  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Assvria  sufficiently  refutes  the  application  of  the  name  for  Babylonia 
by  Calvin,  Lowth,  and  others.  Gill  thinks  that  "  the  Assyrian  here  may 
represent  the  Turks,  who  now  possess  the  land  of  Israel,  and  shall  be  de- 
stroyed." Cocceius  understands  by  Assyria  the  Turks  and  Saracens,  arid 
by  the  mountains  the  once  Christian  regions  which  they  have  usurped,  in 
Ai-menia,  Mesopotamia,  Asia,  Syria,  Palestine,  Eg^qit,  Africa,  Greece, 
Thrace,   Illyria,    Hungary.      (Hi  sane   sunt  montes  Dei  et  terra  ipsius 

atque  eeclesi* suspicio  igitur  est  prophetiam  banc   loqui   de 

hisce,  qui  nunc  Assyria  nominari  possunt. 

26.  The  Prophet  now  explains  his  previous  conjunction  of  events  so 
remote  as  the  Assyrian  overthi'ow  and  the  fall  of  Babylon,  by  declaring  both 
to  be  partial  executions  of  one  general  decree  against  all  hostile  and  oppos- 
ing powers.  This  is  the  purpose  that  is  purposed  upon  all  the  earth,  and 
this  the  hand  that  is  stretched  out  over  all  the  nations.  On  the  supposition 
that  this  relates  to  Babylon  alone,  or  to  Assyria  alone,  we  are  obliged  to 
understand  the  ivhole  earth  and  all  nations  as  describing  the  universal  sway 
of  these  gi-eat  powers  respectively.  Henderson  applies  the  terms  to  Assyria, 
with  an  indefinite  reference  to  any  other  powers  that  might  set  themselves 
in  opposition.  The  true  interpretation  of  the  words  as  comprehending 
Assyria  and  Babylon,  with  reference  to  what  goes  before,  is  given  by 
Aben  Ezra,  Jarchi,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis.  Aben  Ezra  seems  indeed  to  make 
this  the  apodosis  of  the  sentence,  which  is  wholly  unnecessary.  Clericus 
regards  the  combination  of  the  cognate  noun  and  participle  {purpose,  pur- 
posed) as  emphatic,  and  implying  settled  immutable  determmation.  Vitringa 
explains  purpose  and  hand  as  meaning  wisdom  and  strength  ;  Gill,  more 
correctly,  plan  and  execution.  The  outstretched  hand,  as  Knobel  observes, 
is  a  gestm-e  of  threatening.  Hitzig  gratuitously  changes  hand  to  arm,  as 
in  chap.  v.  25.  All  the  earth  is,  with  as  httle  reason,  changed  to  all  lands 
by  Gesenius  and  the  later  Gei-mans  except  Ewald. 

27.  As  the  preceding  verse  declares  the  extent  of  God's  avenging  pur- 
pose, so  this  affirms  the  certainty  of  its  execution,  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  his  almighty  power.  For  Jehovah  of  Hosts  hath  purposed  (this), 
and  who  shall  annul  (his.  purpose)  ?  And  his  hand  (is)  the  one  stretched 
out,  and  who  shall  turn  it  lack  ? — Instead  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  the  Septua- 
gint  has  here  the  Holy  God,  or  God  the  Holy  One.  "i??J  has  been  variously 
translated,  scatter  (LXX.),  weaken  (Vulgate),  avei-t'  (Luther),  dissolve 
(Calvin),  change  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  hinder  (Gesenius),  break  (Ewald);  but 
its  sense  is  that  given  in  the  English  Version  (disannul),  and  by  De  Wette 
(vereiteln).  The  meaning  of  the  last  clause  is  not  simply  that  his  hand  is 
stretched  out,  as  most  writers  give  it,  but  that  the  hand  stretched  out  is  his, 
as  appears  from  the  article  prefixed  to  the  participle  n^lDJ.  (See  Gesenius 
§  108,  3.  Ewald  §  560).  The  construction  is  given  by  Cocceius,  Lowth, 
Maurer,  Henderson,  Knobel,  and  Ewald  (seine  Hand  ist  die  ausgereckte). 
Hitzig's  attempt  to  strengthen  the  last  verb  by  rendering  it  frightened  hack 
(zuriickschrecken)  has  the  opposite  effect.  Ewald's  translation  (hemmen) 
also  fails  to  convey  the  exact  sense  of  the  Hebrew  verb,  which  is  correctly 
given  in  the  Vulgate  (avertet),  and  still  more  precisely  by  Cocceius  (retro- 
aget).  Clericus  modernizes  the  construction  of  the  whole  verse  (cum  con- 
silium ceperit.  Sec),  and  Gesenius  that  of  the  second  clause  (ist  seine  Hand 
gestreckt  u.  s.  w.).     Here  again  Gill  is  felicitous  in  paraphrase.     "  There's 


808  ISAIAH  uYIV.  [Ver.  28,  29. 

nothing  comes  to  pass  but  he  has  purposed,  and  everj'thing  he  has  pui"posed 
does  come  to  pass.  " 

28.  In  the  year  of  the  death  of  Kintj  Aha:::,  was  this  burden,  or  threatening 
prophecy,  against  Philistia.  Junius  begins  the  fifteenth  chapter  here,  and 
Calvin  says  it  would  have  begun  here,  but  for  the  preposterous  division  or 
rather  laceration  of  the  chapters.  Jerome  notes  this  as  the  first  prophecy 
belonging  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  and  J.  H,  Michaelis  accordingly  makes 
this  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  division  of  the  book.  According  to  Coc- 
ceius's  arrangement,  it  is  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  part,  extending  to 
the  twentieth  chapter,  and  distinguished  by  the  fourfold  recurrence  of  the 
title  ^<^^,  as  to  the  sense  of  which  vide  supra,  chap.  xiii.  1.  Gesenius,  Hen- 
dewerk,  and  Henderson,  suppose  the  words  of  this  verse  to  refer  to  a  period 
anterior  to  the  death  of  Ahaz,  Maurer  to  a  period  after  it.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
thinks  that  the  title  at  least  was  written  afterwards.  Hitzig  and  Knobel 
regard  the  title  as  the  work  of  a  compiler,  and  the  former  supposes  the 
entire  passage  to  have  been  reduced  to  writing  long  after  the  alleged  date 
of  the  prophecy,  while  Ivnobel  throws  the  whole  back  to  the  year  739,  near 
the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Ahaz.  These  are  mere  conjectures,  which  can 
have  no  weight  against  a  title  forming  part  of  the  text  as  far  as  we  can 
trace  it  back.  One  manuscript  instead  of  Ahaz  has  Ihziah,  a  mere  emen- 
dation intended  to  remove  a  supposed  chronological  difficulty.  Henderson 
points  out  an  erroneous  division  of  the  text  in  some  editions  of  the  English 
Bible,  by  prefixing  the  paragraph  mark  to  ver.  29,  so  as  to  apply  the  date 
here  given  to  what  goes  before,  whereas  the  dates  are  always  placed  at  the 
beginning.  Augusti's  translation  of  the  second  clause  {the  threatening  pro- 
phecy  lias  this)  mistakes  the  fonn  of  the  original,  which  can  only  mean  this 
threateninr/  prophecy, 

29.  Rejoice  7iot,  0  Philistia,  all  of  thee  (or  all  Philistia),  because  the  rod 
that  smote  thee  is  broken,  for  out  of  the  root  of  the  serpent  shall  come  forth  a 
basilisk,  and  its  fruit  a  jiyinrj  fiery  serpent.  The  name  ntJ'?Q  is  applied  in 
Hebrew  to  the  south-western  part  of  Canaan  on  the  Mediterranean  coast, 
nominally  belonging  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  but  for  ages  occupied  by  the 
D^nt'vD  or  Philistines,  a  race  of  Egyptian  origin  who  came  to  Canaan  from 
Caphtor,  i.  e.  according  to  the  ancients  Cappadocia,  but  according  to  the 
moderns  either  Cyprus  or  Crete,  most  probably  the  latter.  The  name  is 
now  traced  to  an  Ethiopic  root  meaning  to  wander,  and  probably  denotes 
wanderers  or  emigrants.  Hence  it  is  commonly  rendered  in  the  Septuagint 
aXXofvXoi.  The  Philistines  are  spoken  of  above  in  chaps,  ix.  11,  xi.  14, 
and  throughout  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  as  the  hereditary 
enemies  of  Israel.  They  were  subdued  by  David  (2  Sam,  v.  17-25,  xxi. 
15),  and  still  paid  tribute  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chron.  xvii.  11), 
but  rebelled  against  Jehoram  (2  Chron.  xxi.  16,  17),  were  again  subdued 
by  Uzziah  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  G),  and  again  shook  ofl'the  yoke  in  the  reign  of 
Ahaz  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  48).     The  Greek  name  naXuiarlvri,  a  corruption  of 

nC?D,  is  applied  by  Josephus  and  other  ancient  writers  to  the  whole  land 
of  Israel,  from  which  comes  our  Palestine,  employed  in  the  same  manner. 

The  expression  "H^.S  is  explained  by  Lowth  to  mean  trith  one  consent,  while 
Henderson  connects  it  with  the  negative  in  this  sense,  let  not  any  part 
of  thee.  Most  writers  make  it  simply  mean  the  whole  of  thee,  perhaps 
vith  reference  to  Philistia  as  a  union  of  several  principalities.  All  in- 
terpreters agree  that  the  Philistines  are  licre  spoken  of  as  having  recently 
escaped  from  the  ascendancy  of  some  superior  power,  but  at  the  same 


Ver.  30.]  ISAIAH  XIV.  309 

time  threatened  with  a  more  complete  subjection.  The  first  of  these 
ideas  is  expressed  by  the  figure  of  a  broken  rod  or  stafl',  for  the  mean- 
ing of  which  vide  supra  ad.  v.  5.  The  other  is  expressed  by  the  very 
different  figure  of  an  ordinary  serpent  producing  or  succeeded  by  other 
varieties  more  venomous  and  deadly.  On  the  natural  history  of  the  pas- 
sage, see  the  Hebrew  Lexicons,  Bochart's  Hierozoicon,  and  Rosenmiiller's 
Alterthumskunde.  "Whatever  be  the  particular  species  intended,  the  essen- 
tial idea  is  the  same,  and  has  never  been  disputed.  Some,  indeed,  suppose 
a  graduation  or  climix  in  the  third  term  also,  the  fiery  flying  serpent 
being  supposed  to  be  more  deadly  than  the  basilisk,  as  this  is  more  so 
than  the  ordinary  serpent.  But  most  writers  refer  the  sufiix  in  V'lD  to 
tJTIJ,  and  regard  the  other  two  names  as  correlative  or  parallel.  The  transi- 
tion in  the  last  clause  from  the  figure  of  an  animal  to  that  of  a  plant  may  serve 
the  double  purpose  of  reminding  us  that  what  we  read  is  figurative,  and  of 
shewing  how  unsafe  it  is  to  tamper  with  the  text  on  the  ground  of  mere 
rhetorical  punctilios.  As  to  the  application  of  the  figm-es,  there  are  several 
difierent  opinions.  Jerome,  and  a  long  line  of  interpreters,  including 
Hendewerk,  suppose  the  broken  staff"  to  be  the  death  of  Ahaz.  But  he,  so 
far  from  having  smitten  the  Philistines,  had  been  smitten  by  them.  Kimchi, 
Abarbenel,  Vitringa,  and  others,  understand  the  first  clause  as  referring  to 
the  death  of  Uzziah.  But  this  had  taken  place  more  than  thirty  years 
before.  Vitringa  endeavours  to  remove  this  difficulty  by  supposing  an 
ellipsis ;  rejoice  not  in  the  death  of  him  who  smote  you,  and  in  the  pros- 
perity which  you  have  since  enjoyed  for  many  j'ears.  But  this  is  wholly 
arbitrary.  Others  suppose  Tiglath-pileser  to  be  meant  by  the  rod  which 
smote  them  ;  but  for  this  there  is  no  sufficient  ground  in  history.  Gesenius 
applies  the  figures  not  to  an  individual,  but  to  the  Jewish  power,  which 
had  been  broken  and  reduced  during  the  reign  of  Ahaz.  The  still  move 
formidable  domination  threatened  in  the  last  clause  he  explains,  not  with 
the  older  writers  to  be  that  of  Hezekiah  (2  Kings  xviii.  18),  but  the  re- 
covered strength  of  Judah.  Hitzig  and  Ewald  make  the  last  clause  a  pre- 
diction of  Assyrian  invasion.  Knobel  adopts  the  same  interpretation,  but 
with  this  addition,  that  he  understands  the  figure  of  the  basilisk  coming 
forth  from  the  serpent  as  referring  to  the  agency  of  Juclah  in  procuring  the 
Assyrian  invasion  of  Philistia.  Rosenmiiller  refei'S  this  clause  to  the 
Messiah,  in  which  he  follows  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase.  "  From  among  the 
sons  of  the  sons  of  Jesse,  the  Messiah  shall  come  forth,  and  his  works  shall 
be  among  you  as  fiery  serpents."  Some  of  the  old  writers  suppose  K^HJ  to 
contain  an  allusion  to  one  of  the  names  of  Jesse  (2  Sam.  xvii.  25). 

30.  And  the  first-horn  of  the  poor  shall  feed,  and  the  needy  in  security  lie 
down,  and  1  will  lull  thy  root  with  famine,  and  thy  remnant  it  shall  slay.  The 
future  condition  of  the  Jews  is  here  contrasted  with  that  of  the  Philistines. 
The  figures  in  the  first  clause  are  borrowed  from  a  flock,  in  the  second  from 
a  tree,  but  with  obvious  allusion  to  a  human  subject.  The  first-born  of  the 
poor  is  explained  by  the  Targum  and  the  Rabbins  to  mean  the  nobles  of 
Judah,  now  despised  by  the  Philistines.  Calvin  makes  it  a  superlative  ex- 
pression for  the  poorest  and  most  wretched  (quasi  suis  miseriis  insignes), 
and  this  sense  is  approved  by  most  of  the  later  writers,  some  of  whom  refer 
to  Job  xviii.  13,  for  an  analogous  expression.  Gesenius,  however,  is  dis- 
posed to  admit  an  allusion  to  the  next  generation,  which  would  make  the 
promise  too  remote,  and  leaves  the  expression  of  first-horn  unexplained. 
Some  writers  needlessly  amend  the  text.  Thus  J.  D.  Michaelis  makes  the  ^ 
in  ''■03  a  preposition,  and  reads  in  viy  pastures,  a  conjecture  recently  re- 


810  ISAIAH  XIV.  [Ver.  31. 

newed  by  Ewald,  who  would  point  the  word  '''!'3?  and  make  "^3  a  synon3Tne 
of  ">?.  But  an  exposition  which  involves  a  change  of  text  and  the  invention 
of  a  word  to  suit  the  place,  and  both  without  necessity,  seems  to  have  a 
twofold  claim  to  be  rejected.  Equally  gratuitous  is  Lowth's  reading  '''D33, 
rw//  choice  Jirst-fniits.  Gesenius  and  lie  Wette  supply  n02?  in  the  first 
clause  from  the  second,  shall  feed  (juieth/.  But  the  threat  of  famine  in  the 
other  clause  seems  to  shew  that  the  prominent  idea  is  abundance,  as  ex- 
pressed by  the  older  writers.  There  is  no  need  of  taking  root  in  the  sense 
of  stock  or  race.  The  figm'ative  part  of  the  last  clause  is  borrowed  from  a 
tree,  here  divided  into  two  parts,  the  root  and  the  rest  or  remainder. 
Gesenius  distinguishes  between  n''Dn  and  3in  as  terms  which  usage  has 
appropriated  to  the  act  of  God  and  man  respectively.  Hitzig  makes  the 
one  mean  Mil  in  general,  and  the  other  more  specitically  Idll  with  the  sword 
(Jer.  XV.  3).  The  third  person  3"i'"l^  is  by  some  regarded  as  a  mere  enallage 
personre,  and  refen-ed  hke  ^HOn  to  God  himself.  Others  refer  it  to  the 
enemy  mentioned  in  ver.  31,  or  the  fieiy  serpent  in  ver.  30.  Others  prefer 
an  indefinite  construction,  which  is  very  common,  and  would  here  be  entitled 
to  the  preference,  were  there  not  another  still  more  simple.  This  makes 
ny  the  subject  of  the  last  verb,  so  that  what  is  first  mentioned  as  an  in- 
strument in  God's  hand,  reappears  in  the  last  member  of  the  sentence  as 
an  agent. 

31.  Howl,  O  gate!  cry,  0  city!  dissolved,  O  Philistia,  is  the  whole  of 
thee ;  for  out  of  the  north  a  smoke  comes,  and  there  is  no  strariyler  in  his  forces. 
The  Philistines  are  not  only  forbidden  to  rejoice,  but  exhorted  to  lament. 
The  object  of  address  is  a  single  city  representing  all  the  rest.  There  is  no 
ground  for  the  opinion  that  Ashdod  is  particularly  meant.  It  is  rather  a 
case  of  poetical  individualisation.  Gate  is  not  here  put  for  the  judges  or 
nobles  who  were  w^ont  to  sit  there — nor  is  it  even  mentioned  as  the  chief 
place  of  concourse — but  rather  with  allusion  to  the  defences  of  the  city,  as 
a  parallel  expression  to  city  itself.  The  insertion  of  a  preposition  by  the 
Targum  and  Kimchi — hoid  for  the  yate,  cry  for  the  city — is  entirely  un- 
authorised, and  changes  the  whole  meaning.  The  masculine  form  ^1^3 
seems  to  have  greatly  peqjlexed  interpreters.  Some  of  the  older  writers 
supply  ^''ii,  others  DV,  and  even  Ewald  says  that  we  must  be  content  to 
make  it  an  infinitive.  Knobel  regards  it  as  a  mere  anomaly  or  idiomatic 
licence  of  construction.  Hitzig  supposes  a  sudden  transition  from  the  third 
to  the  second  person — it  is  dissolved,  O  whole  Philistia.  The  true  solution 
is  that  J103  agrees  regularlj'  with  73  in  '^7.'^.  This  explanation,  w'hich  Hen- 
dewerk  admits  to  be  as  old  as  Maurer,  is  distinctly  given  by  Cocceius  (lique- 
iiictum  est,  Palfcstina,  universum  tui),  and  copied  by  Yitringa  and  J.  H. 
Michaelis.  Another  idea  ascribed  to  Maurer  by  Knobel — viz.  that  the 
smoke  here  meant  is  that  of  conflagrations  kindled  by  the  enemy — is  at  least 
as  old  as  Clericus.  Some  of  the  older  writers  understood  it  simply  as  an 
emblem  for  wrath  or  trouble.  Lowth  cites  YirgiY s  fu7nantes  pul rere  campos, 
and  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  clouds  of  dust  raised  by  an  army  on  the 
march.  This  is  adopted  by  Gesenius,  Rosenmiiller,  Hendewerk,  and 
others  ;  but  Hitzig  and  Knobel  object  to  this  interpretation  of  iW  as 
unauthorised  by  Hebrew  usage.  Hitzig  refers  it  to  the  practice  of  literally 
carrying  fire  in  front  of  caravans  to  mark  the  course  ;  but  this  is  objected 
to  by  others  as  peculiar  to  the  desert  and  to  straggling  or  divided  bodies. 
It  may  be  doubted,  notwithstanding  the  allusion  in  the  last  clause,  whether 
)^"y  was  intended  to  refer  to  an  army  at  all.  If  not,  we  may  suppose  with 
Calvin  that  smoke  is  mentioned  merely  as  a  sign  of  distant  and  approaching 


Vkr.  32.]  ISAIAH  XIV.  311 

fire,  a  natural  and  common  metaphor  for  any  powerful  destroying  agent. — 
TllS  has  been  conjecturally  explained  in  various  ways,  but  is  agreed  by  all 
the  modern  writers  to  mean  properly  alone  or  separated,  and  to  be  descrip- 
tive of  the  enemy  with  which  Philistia  is  here  threatened.  Some  give  to 
V"iyiO  the  sense  of  the  cognate  CiyiD,  viz.  appointed  times,  and  understand 
it  as  referring  to  the  orders  under  which  the  invading  army  acts.  Most 
writers  now,  however,  give  it  another  sense  of  onyiD,  viz.  assemblies,  here 
applied  specifically  to  an  army.  Thus  understood  the  clause  is  descriptive 
of  a  compact,  disciplined,  and  energetic  host.  A  similar  description  we 
have  had  ah'eady  in  chap.  v.  26-29,  from  which  resemblance  some  infer 
that  this  passage  mnut  relate  to  the  Assyrians.  Aben  Ezra  refers  it  to  the 
Babylonians  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  Kimchi  to  the  Jews  under  Hezekiah, 
and  Cocceius  to  the  Romans  as  the  final  conquerors  of  \rhole  Palestina,  by 
which  he  understands  the  whole  of  what  we  now  call  Palestine,  or  at  least 
Judea.  Vitringa,  who  usually  quotes  the  strangest  notions  of  Cocceius  with 
indulgent  deference,  appears  to  lose  his  patience  at  this  point,  and  exclaims, 
"  Hanc  ego  interpretationem  totam  suo  relinquam  loco,  nee  ejus  amplius 
meminero  ;  est  enim  plane  paradoxa  et  a  communi  sensu  aliena."  The 
diversity  of  judgments  as  to  the  particular  enemy  here  meant,  and  the 
slightness  of  the  grounds  on  which  they  severally  rest,  may  suffice  to  shew 
that  the  prophecy  is  really  generic,  not  specific,  and  includes  all  the  agencies 
and  means  by  which  the  Philistines  were  punished  for  their  constant  and 
inveterate  enmity  to  the  chosen  people,  as  well  as  for  idolatry  and  other 
crimes. 

32.  And  loliat  shall  one  answer  (what  answer  shall  be  given  to)  the 
amhassadors  of  a  nationf  That  Jehovah  has  founded  Z  ion,  and  In  it  the 
afflicted  of  his  people  shall  seek  refuge.  The  meaning  of  the  last  clause  is 
too  clear  to  be  disputed,  viz.,  that  God  is  the  protector  of  his  people.  This 
is  evidently  stated  as  the  result  and  sum  of  the  whole  prophecy,  and  as  such 
is  sufficiently  intelligible.  It  is  also  given,  however,  as  an  answer  to  ambas- 
sadors or  messengers,  and  this  has  given  rise  to  a  great  diversity  of  explana- 
tions. Instead  of  ambassadors  CONT'D)  kings  C^?^^)  is  given  by  all  the  old 
Greek  Versions  except  Symmachus,  who  has  dyysXoig.  The  older  writers 
for  the  most  part  make  ambassadors  the  subject  of  the  verb — what  ivill  the 
umbassadors  answer  f  Thus  understood,  the  words  have  been  applied  to  the 
report  carried  back  by  the  ambassadors  of  friendly  powers,  or  b}'  those  sent 
out  by  the  Jews  themselves,  on  the  occasion  of  Hezekiah's  victory  over  the 
Philistines,  or  of  his  delivery  from  the  Ass}T:ian  invasion.  In  order  to  avoid 
the  irregularity  of  giving  "'lil  a  plural  meaning,  some  have  supposed  the  sen- 
tence to  relate  to  the  report  carried  back  by  a  Philistine  embassy,  sent  to 
ascertain  the  condition  of  Jerusalem  after  the  Assyiian  attack.  The 
irregular  concord  of  the  plural  noun  with  ^3^s?0  was  explained  by  supplying 
a  distributive  pronoun,  every  one  of  the  ambassadors,  a  form  of  speech  quite 
foreign  to  the  Hebrew  language.  Hendewerk,  who  retains  this  old  construc- 
tion, understands  this  as  the  answer  of  the  Assyrian  ambassadors,  when 
asked  by  the  Philistines  to  attack  Jerusalem.  It  is  now  commonly  agreed, 
however,  that  MJ  OXpD  is  the  object  of  the  verb,  which  is  repeatedly  con- 
strued with  a  noun  directly,  and  that  its  subject  is  either  Hezekiah  or  more 
probably  indefijiite.  As  to  ^t^,  some  still  give  it  a  collective  meaning :  others 
refer  it  to  the  Phihstines,  suing  for  peace,  or  proposing  a  joint  resistance  to 
Assj^ia ;  others  to  Judah  itself,  an  application  contraiy  to  usage.  All  this 
Beems  to  shew  that  the  expression  is  indefinite,  as  the  very  absence  of  the 


812  ISAIAH  XV.  XVI.  ■       [Yku.  32. 

article  implies,  and  that  the  whole  sense  meant  to  be  conveyed  is  this,  that 
such  may  be  the  answer  given  to  the  inquiries  made  from  any  quarter.  Of 
all  the  specific  applications,  the  most  probable  is  that  which  supposes  an 
allusion  to  Rabshakch's  argument  with  Hczekiah  agninst  trusting  iu  Jehovah. 
But  this  seems  precluded  by  the  want  of  any  natural  connection  with 
PhUistia,  which  is  the  subject  of  the  previous  context.  I  shall  only  add, 
that  Cocceius  is  not  only  true  to  his  original  hypothesis,  but  so  far  carried 
away  by  it  as  to  lay  aside  his  usual  grammatical  precision  (which  often 
contrasts  strangely  with  his  exegesis)  and  translate  i^^V  as  a  preterite.  He 
understands  the  verse  as  accounting  for  the  ruin  of  the  Jews  by  the  recep- 
tion which  they  give  to  the  apostles  of  Christ.  What  answer  ivas  given  to 
the  messengers  of  the  nation  [i.  e.  the  messengers  sent  to  them)  when  Jehovah 
founded  Z  ion,  (or  the  Christian  Chin'ch)  and  the  a  [flicted  of  his  people  sought 
refuge  in  it  /  The  same  sense  might  have  been  as  well  attained  without  de- 
parting from  the  strict  sense  of  the  future.  As  to  the  sense  itself,  it  needs 
no  comment  to  evince  that  it  is  purely  arbitrary,  and  that  a  hundred  other 
meanings  might  be  just  as  well  imposed  upon  the  words. 


CHAPTERS    XY.  XYl. 

These  chapters  contain  a  prediction  of  the  downfall  of  Moab.  Most  of 
the  recent  German  writers  deny  that  any  part  of  it  was  ^vritten  by  Isaiah, 
except  the  last  two  verses  of  chap,  xvi.,  which  they  suppose  him  to  have 
added  as  a  postscript  to  au  older  prophecy.  The  reasons  for  ascribing  the 
remainder  of  the  passage  to  another  writer  are  derived  from  minute  pecu- 
liarities of  phraseology,  and  h-om  the  general  character  and  tone  of  the 
whole  composition.  Hitzig  regards  this  as  the  prophecy  of  Jonah  men- 
tioned iu  2  Ivings  xiv.  25.  In  this  conclusion  Maurer  acquiesces,  and 
Knobel  thinks  it  not  improbable.  The  grounds  on  which  such  hypotheses 
must  be  rejected,  when  not  only  destitute  of  external  evidence  but  contra- 
dicted by  it,  have  been  already  stated  in  the  general  introduction.  Hende- 
werk  combats  Hitzig's  doctrine  on  his  own  gi-oimd  and  with  his  owna  weapons, 
deducing  from  the  verbal  minutiiE  of  the  passage  proofs  of  its  poetical 
excellence  and  of  its  genuineness.  Some  of  the  older  writers  regard  the 
last  two  verses  of  chap.  xvi.  as  an  addition  made  by  Isaiah  to  au  earlier  pre- 
diction of  his  own.  Henderson  thinks  them  an  addition  made  to  a  projihecy 
of  Isaiah  by  a  later  prophecy,  If  we  set  aside  the  alleged  internal  evidence 
of  a  different  origin,  the  simplest  view  of  the  passage  is  that  which  regards 
the  whole  as  a  continuous  composition,  and  supposes  the  Prophet  at  the  close 
to  fix  the  date  of  the  prediction  which  he  had  just  uttered.  The  particular 
event  referred  to  in  these  chapters  has  been  variously  explained  to  be  the 
invasion  of  Moab  by  Jeroboam  II.,  king  of  Israel;  by  Tirhakah,  king  of 
Ethiopia;  byTiglath-Pileser,  king  of  Assyria;  by  his  successors  Shalmancser, 
Sennacherib,  and  Esarhaddon ;  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon,  &c. 
The  safest  conclusion  seems  to  be,  that  the  prediction  is  generic,  and  in- 
tended to  describe  the  destruction  of  Moab,  without  exclusive  refercuice  to 
any  one  of  the  events  by  which  it  was  occasioned  or  promoted,  but  with 
special  allusions  possibly  to  all  of  them.  Compare  the  introduction  to 
chap,  xiii.,  xiv.  According  to  Cocceius,  the  Moab  of  this  prophecy  is  Israel, 
the  hostile  power  Rome,  and  the  time  that  of  the  downfall  of  Jerusalem. 
To  such  hypotheses  the  answer  still  is,  that  they  might  bo  indefinitely 
multiplied  and  varied,  with  as  much  or  rather  with  as  little  reason. 


Yer.  1,  2.1  ISAIAH  XV.  313 


CHAPTER  XV. 

This  cbaptur  is  occupied  Avith  a  description  of  the  general  grief,  occa- 
sioned bj-  the  conquest  of  the  chief  towns  and  the  desolation  of  the  country 
at  large.  Its  chief  peculiarities  of  form  are  the  numerous  names  of  places 
introduced,  and  the  strong  personification  by  which  they  are  represented  as 
gi-ieviug  for  the  public  calamity.  The  chapter  closes  with  an  intimation  of 
still  greater  evils. 

1.  (This  is)  the  burden  of  Moah,  that  in  a  nif/ht  Ar-Moab  in  laid 
waste,  is  destioi/ed ;  that  in  a  ni(/ht  Kir-^Ioah  is  laid  waste,  is  destroyed. 
The  English  Version,  Rosenmiiller,  and  Hitzig,  understand  the  first  verse  as 
assigning  a  reason  for  the  second.  Because  in  a  night,  &c.,  he  ascends,  &c. 
But  so  long  a  sentence  is  at  variance  not  only  with  the  genei'al  usage  of  the 
language,  but  with  the  style  of  this  particular  prophecy.  Gesenius  supposes 
an  ellipsis  at  the  beginning,  and  takes  *?  in  its  usual  sense  of  that.  "  (I 
affirm)  that,"  &c.  The  same  construction  occurs  where  a  verb  of  swearing 
is  understood  (vii.  9,  xlix.  18).  In  the  absence  of  the  governing  verb,  the 
particle  may  be  translated  siirehj.  Most  of  the  recent  German  versions 
render  it  hj  yea  (ja!).  In  a  «/^/(^  may  be  literally  understood,  as  assaults 
are  often  made  by  night  (chap.  xxi.  4),  or  figuratively,  as  the  phrase  is 
sometimes  used  to  denote  sudden  destruction.  Ar  originally  meant  a  city, 
and  Ar-Moah  the  city  of  Moab,  i.  e.  the  capital  city,  or,  as  Gesenius  says, 
the  only  real  cit}'  of  the  Moabites.  It  was  on  the  south  side  of  the  Arnon 
(Num.  xsii.  86).  The  Greeks  called  it  Areojwlis,  or  citj'  of  Mars,  according 
to  their  favourite  practice  of  corrupting  foreign  names,  so  as  to  give  them 
the  appearance  of  significant  Greek  words.  Ptolemy  calls  it  Rhabmath- 
vwm,  a  corruption  of  the  Hebrew  Rabbath-Moitb,  i.e.  chief  city  of  Moab. 
Jerome  says  that  the  place  was  destroyed  in  one  night  by  an  earthquake 
when  he  was  a  boy.  The  Arabs  call  it  Mab  and  Errabba.  It  is  now  in 
ruins.  In  connection  with  the  capital  city,  the  Prophet  names  the  prin- 
cipal or  only  fortress  in  the  land  of  Moab.  Kir  originally  means  a  ivall, 
then  a  walled  town  or  fortress.  The  place  here  meant  is  a  few  miles  south- 
east of  Ar,  on  a  rocky  hill,  strongly  fortified  by  nature,  and  provided  with 
a  castle.  The  Chaldee  paraphrase  of  this  verse  calls  it  Kerakka  de  Moab, 
the  fortress  of  Moab,  which  name  it  has  retained  among  the  orientals,  who 
extend  it  to  the  whole  of  ancient  Moab. 

2.  The  destruction  of  the  chief  cities  causes  general  gi-ief.  They  (in- 
definitely) go  up  to  the  house  {i.  e.  the  temple),  and  Dibon  (to)  the  high 
places  for  (the  purpose  of)  weeping.  On  Nebo  and  on  Mcdeba,  Moab 
howls — on  all  his  heads  baldness — every  beard  cut  oj^.  Luther.  Gesenius, 
and  others,  make  the  verb  indefinite.  Lowth,  Rosenmiiller,  Hitzig,  and 
Maurer,  regard  Moab  as  the  subject.  Vitringa  makes  ri)5  a  contracted 
proper  name  for  i>(?r/(»(eo»  (Jer.  xlviii.  28)  ox  Beth-baal-meon  ( Josh.  xiii.  19), 
on  the  south  side  of  the  Amon,  now  called  Maein.  Ewald  makes  it  a  con- 
traction of  D^n?3T  Ti^l  (Jer.  xh-iii.  22),  which  was  not  far  from  Dibon  (Num. 
xxxiii.  46).  The  same  explanation  was  once  approved  by  Rosenmiiller,  but 
in  the  Compendium  of  his  Scholia,  he  adopts  the  opinion  of  Kimchi,  that 
JT'^  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  temple,  and  is  equivalent  to  ^'"tpD,  which 
occurs  below  (xvi.  12)  as  a  parallel  to  riion.  The  ancient  heathen  built 
their  temples  upon  heights  (chap.  Ixv.  7).  Solomon  built  one  to  the  Moabitish 
god  Chemosh  on  the  mountain  before  Jerusalem  (1  Ivings  xi.  1).  This 
explanation  is  approved  by  Gesenius  and   all  the  later  Germans  except 


814  ISAIAH  XV.  [Ver.  3,  4. 

Ewalcl.  Some  who  take  0^3  as  a  proper  name,  make  nVD3  one  also, 
regarding  it  as  a  contracted  form  of  Bamoth-Baal  (Josh.  xiii.  17).  Dibon, 
a  town  north  of  the  Arnon,  rebuilt  by  the  tribe  of  Gad,  and  thence  called 
Dihod-fjad  (Num.  xxxiii.  45),  although  it  had  formerlj-  belonged  to  Moab, 
and  would  seem  from  this  passage  to  have  been  recovered  by  them.  The 
same  place  is  called  Dimoii  in  ver.  9,  in  order  to  assimilate  it  to  D"l,  blood. 
The  modern  name  is  Diban.  There  is  no  preposition  before  H^l  and  P^n 
in  the  Hebrew.  Hence  the  latter  may  be  taken  either  as  the  object  or  the 
subject  of  the  verb.  The  first  construction  is  preferred  by  the  older  writers  ; 
those  of  modem  date  are  almost  unanimous  in  favour  of  the  other,  which 
makes  Dibon  itsejf  go  up  to  the  high  places.  The  only  objection  is,  that 
the  writer  would  hardly  have  coupled  this  one  place  vrith  the  countiy  at 
large,  and  this  is  not  sufficient  to  exclude  it.  The  objection  to  the  other 
is,  that  Dibon  was  situated  in  a  plain,  to  which  it  may  be  answered  that 
the  phrase  f/o  up  has  rcjference  in  many  cases  not  to  geographical  position, 
but  to  sacredness  and  dignity. 

3.  In  its  streets,  they  are  (jirded  uith  sackcIotJi ;  on  its  roofs  and  in  its 
squares  (or  broad  places)  all  (literally,  all  of  it)  hoirls,  coming  down  with 
urcjiing  (from  the  house-tops  or  the  temples).  In  this  verse  there  is  a 
singular  alternation  of  masculine  and  feminine  suffixes,  all  relating  to 
Moab,  sometimes  considered  as  a  country,  and  sometimes  as  a  nation. 
The  last  clause  is  explained  by  most  modern  writers  to  mean  melting  into 
tears,  as  the  eye  is  elsewhere  said  to  run  down  tears  or  water  (Jer.  ix.  17 ; 
Lam.  iii.  48).  But  as  the  eye  is  not  here  mentioned,  and  the  preposition 
is  inserted,  making  a  marked  difference  between  this  and  the  alleged  ex- 
pressions, it  is  better  to  adhere  to  the  old  construction,  which  supposes  an 
antithesis  between  this  clause  and  the  ascent  to  the  temples  or  the  house- 
tops. Sackcloth  is  mentioned  as  the  usual  mourning  dress  and  badge  of 
deep  humiliation. 

4.  And  Ileshbon  cries  and  Elealeh — even  to  Jahaz  /v  their  voice  heard — 
therefore  the  ivarriors  of  Moab  cry — his  sotd  is  distressed  to  him  (or  in  him). 
Heshbon,  a  royal  city  of  the  Amorites,  assigned  to  Keuben  and  to  Gad  at 
different  times,  or  to  both  jointly,  famous  for  its  fish-pools,  was  a  celebrated 
town  in  the  days  of  Eusebius,  the  ruins  of  which  are  still  in  existence, 
under  the  slightly  altered  name  of  Ileshdn.  Elealeh,  often  mentioned  \\\\h 
it,  was  also  assigned  to  the  tribe  of  Reuben.  Eusebius  describes  these 
towns  as  near  together  in  the  highlands  in  Gilead,  opposite  to  Jericho. 
Robinson  and  Smith,  while  at  the  latter  place,  conversed  with  an  Arab 
chief,  who  pointed  out  to  them  the  Wady  Hesban,  near  which,  far  up  in  the 
mountain,  is  the  ruined  place  of  the  same  name,  the  ancient  Heshlion.  Half 
an  liour  north-east  of  this  lies  another  ruin  called  El  Al,  the  ancient  Elealeh 
(Palestine,  ii.  278).  The  names  YUl  and  nvq^  are  treated  by  Gesenius 
as  identical,  but  Hitzig  understands  them  to  denote  two  different  places, 
one  described  by  Jerome  as  overhanging  the  Dead  Sea,  the  other  further  to 
the  south-cast,  on  the  edge  of  the  desert,  the  scene  of  the  battle  between 
Sihon  and  Israel.  In  either  case,  the  preposition  seems  to  imply  that  the 
place  meant  was  a  frontier  town.  The  same  form  of  expression  that  is  here 
used  occurs  also  chap.  x.  30. — Vitringa  and  Gesenius  give  l?'"?y  the  rare 
and  doubtful  sense  because,  and  understand  the  Prophet  to  describe  the 
cities  or  people  in  general  as  lamenting  because  even  the  warriors  were  dis- 
mayed. Most  writers  give  the  words  their  usual  meaning,  and  suppose  the 
terror  of  the  warriors  to  be  here  described  as  the  efi'ect,  not  the  cause  of 
the  general  lamentation.     According  to  Knobel,  therefore  has  reference  to 


Ver.  5.]  ISAIAH  XV.  315 

the  ciy  of  Heshbon  and  Elealeh  which  had  just  been  mentioned;  according 
to  Hitzig  and  others,  to  the  downfall  of  the  capital  (ver.  1).     For  ^^H  the 
Septuagint  seems  to  have  read  '')f?n,  which  it  renders  h  oe(pvg.     This  read- 
ing and  translation,  which  is  also  favoured  by  the  Peshito,  is  adopted  by 
Lowth:  the  ver;/  loins  of  Moah  cnj  out.     Other  interpreters  agree  that  it  is 
the  passive  participle  of  v'?n,  used  as  a  noun  in  the  sense  of  warriors  _  or 
heroes,  whether  so  called  because  drawn  out  for  military  service,  or  as  being 
strong,  or  girded  and  equipped,  or  disencumbered  of  unnecessary  clothing. 
Aquiia  has  sf  w.'xo/,  with  the  arms  or  shoulders  bare.    There  is  peculiar  sig- 
nificance in  thus  ascribing  an  unmanly  terror  to  the  very  defenders  of  the 
country.     Vitringa  supposes  an  additional  emphasis  in  the  use  of  the  verb 
•ly^'?',  which  may  either  mean  ajoj^ulor  a  mournful  cry,  and  by  itself  might 
here  denote  a  battle-cry  or  war-shout.     As  if  he  had  said,  the  warriors  of 
Moab  raise  a  ciy,  not  of  battle  or  defiance,  but  of  grief  and  terror.     The 
same  natural  expression  of  distress  is  ascribed  by  Homer  to  his  heroes.  {Vide 
infra,  chap,  xxxiii.  7).  Cocceius  is  singular  in  making  this  an  exhortation :  let 
them  raise  the  war-cry  (vociferentur,  classicum   canant,  barritum  faciant, 
clamorem  tollant,  ut  in  praelioj.     For  nyi^  the  Septuagint  reads  ^iVi'  {yvu- 
Girai),  probably  a  mere  inadvertence.     The  English  Version  and  Lowth 
take  CJ'33  in  the  sense  of  life,  other  intei-preters  in  that  of  soul.     RosenmuUer, 
Gesenius,  and  Ewald,  give  to  ni?")''  the  sense  of  trembling,  from  a  kindred 
root  in  Ai-abic  ;  others  with  more  probability  that  of  being  evil,  i.e.  ill  at  ease 
or  sutfering,  in  which  the  future  corresponding  to  this  preterite  is  frequently 
nsed  elsewhere.     Gesenius  indeed  refers  that  future  to  another  root,  but  one 
of  kindred  origin,  in  which  the  essential  idea  is  probably  the  same.     The 
paronomasia  in  IV'T'  and  nyT"  is  copied  in  Gesenius' s  translation  by  combin- 
ing the  words  Jdagen  and  verznget.     The  similar  terms  are  confounded  by 
the  Vulgate  (ululabit  sibi),  and  by  Calvin,  who  understands  the  sense  to  be, 
that  every  one  will  be  so  occupied  with  his  own  grief  as  to  disregard  that  of 
his  neighbour's. 

5.  My  heart  for  Moab  cries  out— her  fugitives  (are  fled)  as  far  as  Zoar — 
an  heifer  of  three  years  old^or  he  that  goes  up  Lnhith  with  weeping  goes  tip 
ly  it— for  in  the  vmy  of  Horonaim  a  cry  of  destruction  they  lift  up.  Every 
part  of  this  obscure  verse  has  given  rise  to  some  diversity  of  exposition.  It 
has  been  made  a  question  whose  words  it  contains.  Junius  connects  it 
with  the  close  of  the  preceding  verse  and  understands  it  to  contain  the 
words  of  the  warriors  there  mentioned,  endeavouring  to  rally  and  recall  the 
fugitives.  Others  suppose  the  Moabites  in  general,  or  some  individual 
among  them,  to  be  here  the  speaker.  Cocceius  doubts  whether  these  are 
not  the  words  of  God  himself.  Calvin  supposes  the  Prophet  to  be  speak- 
ing in  the  person  and  expressing  the  feelings  of  a  Moabite.  All  these 
hypotheses  appear  to  have  arisen  from  an  idea  that  the  Prophet  cannot  be 
supposed  to  express  sympathy  with  these  sinners  of  the  Gentiles.  But  such 
expressions  are  not  only  common  elsewhere,  but  particularly  frequent  in  this 
part  of  Isaiah.  {Vide  infra  chaps,  xvi.  11,  xxi.  3,  4,  xxii.  5).  Hitzig  suggests, 
as  a  possible  but  not  as  a  probable  construction  of  the  first  words ,^  My 
heart  (is)  toioards  3Ioab  (who)  is  crijing,  &c.,  as  in  Judges  ver.  9.  Some 
older  writers  understand  the  words  to  mean  my  heart  cries  to  Moab,  as  in 
1  Chron.  ver.  20.  Gesenius  gratuitously  cites  other  cases  in  which  ?  has  the 
sense  of /or,  on  account  of,  given  to  it  here  by  Aben  Ezra  {2ii'^^  luya). 
The  particle  is  here  used  in  its  proper  sense  as  indicating  general  relation, 
as  to,  with  respect  to,  and  simply  points  out  Moab  as  the  subject  or  occa- 


310  ISAIAH  AT,  ^Ver.  o. 

siou  of  the  cry.  Ewakl  and  others  make  PW  mean — to  complain  or  himent, 
which  is  neither  bo  exact  nor  so  expressive  as  the  literal  translation.  Instead 
of  my  heart  some  read  his  heart,  others  simply  heart.  Thus  Lowth  ;  the 
heart  of  Moab  crielh  in  her,  after  the  Septuagint  [sv  uIt^).  The  Peahito 
seems  to  have  read  inili  in  his  spirit.  The  common  text  itself  is  variously 
explained.  According  to  the  usual  analog}-,  it  means  her  bars,  and  the 
Vulgate  accordingly  has  vectes  ejus.  By  this  some  understand  the  cities  of 
Moab,  others  its  barriers  or  frontier  posts,  others  its  guardians  or  protectors. 
Most  of  the  modern  M-riters  follow  Saadias  and  Kimchi,  who  explain  the 
word  to  mean  her  fwjitives.  The  only  objection  to  this  explanation  ia 
the  absence  of  the  long  vowel  under  the  first  letter.  Zoar,  one  of  the 
cities  of  the  plain,  preserved  by  Lot's  intercession,  is  now  ascertained 
to  have  been  situated  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea,  near  its  south- 
em  extremity,  and  at  the  foot  of  the  mountains.  (Robinson's  Palestine,  ii.  480, 
G48).  It  is  here  mentioned  as  an  extreme  southern  point,  but  not  without 
allusion,  as  Yitringa  with  great  probability  suggests,  to  Lot's  escape  from 
the  destruction  of  Sodom.  The  next  phrase  (n^C*?C'  T'OIV)  is  famous  as  the 
subject  of  discordant  explanations.  These  may  however  be  reduced  to  two 
classes,  those  which  regard  the  words  as  proper  names,  and  those  which 
regard  them  as  appellatives.  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  two  places  to  be 
mentioned,  Eglath  and  Shelishiyyah  ;  but  of  the  latter  there  is  no  trace  in 
geography  or  histoiy.  Doederlein  conjectures  that  the  city  Eglalh  con- 
sisted of  three  towns,  and  that  the  Hebrew  n'L''?^  is  the  same  as  the  Greek 
r^lvoXig  or  trijyie  city.  But  the  fonner  no  where  else  means  threefold,  but 
always  third.  According  to  Ligbtfoot,  the  phrase  means  Eglah,  or  Eglath 
the  Third,  so  called  to  distinguish  it  from  Eglaim  or  En-eglaim,  a  place  in 
the  same  region,  mentioned  in  Ezek.  xlvii.  10,  "  where  Eglaim  is  plainly  of 
the  dual  number  and  seems  to  intimate  that  there  were  two  Egels,  with  rela- 
tion to  which  our  Eglah  may  be  called  Eglah  the  Third."  (Lightfoot's  Cho- 
rographical  Inquiry,  chap.  iii.  §  8).  With  this  may  be  compared  liamathaim 
which  is  also  dual  (1  Sam.  i.  2),  and  Upper  and  Nether  lieth-horon  (Josh, 
x^i.  3,  5).  Lightfoot  compares  this  Eglah  the  Third  with  the  NsxXa 
of  Ptolemy,  and  the "  AyaWa  of  Josephus,  both  mentioned  in  connection 
with  Zoar,  (Zwaea)  and  the  latter  with  Horonaim  i^Vt^utvai).     The  Ejlun 

xci^S^/  ^^  Abulfeda,  meaning  calves  or  heifers,  may  bo  another  name  for 
the  same  place,  which  must  then  have  been  situated  beyond  the  northern 
boundary  of  Moab,  and  be  mentioned  here  in  order  to  convey  the  idea  that 
the  fugitives  had  fled  in  opposite  directions.  Of  the  late  translators,  De  Wette, 
Henderson,  and  Ewald  retain  the  Hebrew  words  as  a  proper  name,  Eglath- 
Shelishiyah.  On  the  other  hand,  all  the  ancient  versions,  and  the  great 
majority  of  modern  writers,  regard  the  words  in  question  as  appellatives,  and 
all  agree  in  rendering  the  first  of  the  two  heifer.  The  other  is  explained 
by  Jarchi  to  mean  the  third  in  the  order  of  birth,  with  reference  to  some 
supposed  superiority  in  that  class.  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Umbreit,  under- 
stand it  to  mean  third-rate,  of  the  third  order,  i.  e.  inferior  (compare  Dan. 
V.  29 ;  1  Sam.  xv.  9),  and  as  here  applied  to  a  heifer,  lean,  ill-favoured, 
a  figure  borrowed  from  the  pastoral  habits  of  the  people  in  that  region  to 
express  the  smallncss  of  the  city  Zoar,  which  was  so  called  because  it  was 
a  little  one  (Gen.  xix.  20,  22).  It  is  plain  however  that  third  can  have 
this  meaning  only  in  case  of  a  direct  comparison  with  something  of  the  first 
and  second  rank.  Besides,  what  has  the  size  of  Zoar  to  do  with  this 
pathetic  description  of  the  flight  of  Moab  ?     The  gi-eat  majority  of  voices 


Veb.  5.J  ISAIJJI  XV.  317 

is  in  favour  of  the  meaning  three  years  old,  or  retaining  the  form  of  the 
original  more  closel}',  a  heifer  of  the  third  (year).  A  cognate  participle 
(nB'7k^0)  is  used  in  this  sense  and  in  connection  with  this  very  noun  (Gen. 
XV.  9).  By  a  heifer  three  years  old,  Gesenius  understands  one  that  has 
never  yet  been  tamed  or  bi-oken,  according  to  Pliny's  maximum,  domllura 
houm  in  trimatu,  postea  sera,  antea  ■prccmatura.  Now  as  personal  afflic- 
tions are  sometimes  likened  to  the  taming  of  animals  (Jer.  xxxi.  18;  Hosea 
X,  11),  and  as  communities  and  governments  are  often  represented  by  the 
figure  of  a  heifer  (Jer.  xlvi.  20, 1.  11 ;  Hosea  iv.  IG),  the  expressions  thus  in- 
terpreted would  not  be  inappropriate  to  the  state  of  Moab,  hitherto  flourish- 
ing and  uncontrolled,  but  now  three  years  old  and  subjected  to  the  yoke. 
Some  of  the  older  interpreters  suppose  this  statement  of  the  age  to  have  refe- 
rence to  the  voice  of  the  animal,  which  is  said  by  Bochart  to  be  deepest  at  that 
age,  and  according  to  Aristotle,  stronger  in  the  female  than  the  male.  There 
is  still  a  doubt,  however,  with  respect  to  the  application  of  the  simile,  as 
last  explained.  Bochart  refers  it  to  the  Prophet  himself.  "  My  heart  cries 
for  Moab  (for  her  fugitives  to  Zoar),  as  a  heifer  three  years  old,"  Vitringa 
refers  it  to  the  fugitives  of  Moab,  who  escape  to  Zoar,  crying  like  a  heifer 
three  years  old. — Hpyo  is  commonly  a  noun  denoting  an  ascent  or  rising 
ground.  It  is  translated  hill  in  the  English  version  of  1  Sam.  ix.  11,  and 
ascent  in  that  of  Num.  xxxiv.  4,  and  2  Sam.  xv.  30,  which  last  place  is 
strikingly  analogous  to  this.  The  construction  commonly  adopted  makes 
npyiD  an  absolute  nominative :  "  The  ascent  of  Luhith  (or  as  to  the  ascent 
of  Luhith)  with  weeping  one  ascends  it."  It  is  possible,  however,  to  make 
n^yo  a  participle  or  a  participial  noun — "the  ascender  of  Luhith  [i.  e.  he  who 
ascends  it)  with  weeping  ascends  by  it."  The  parallel  passage  (Jer.  xlviii.  5) 
instead  of  13  repeats  ''3?,  This  is  regarded  by  the  latest  writers  as  an  error 
in  transcription  of  ''33  for  ''3  13.  The  Septuagint  has  tpoj  ci  amfBrjaovrai, 
which  implies  still  another  reading  (13).  It  is  a  curious  and  instruc- 
tive fact  that  J.  D.  Michaelis  corrects  the  text  of  Isaiah  by  comparison 
with  Jeremiah,  while  Lowth,  with  equal  confidence,  inverts  the  process  and 
declares  the  text  in  Jeremiah  to  be  unmeaning.  Luhith  is  mentioned 
only  here  and  in  Jer.  xlviii.  5.  Eusebius  describes  it  as  a  village  still 
called  Aovs'i^,  between  Areopolis  and  Zoar,  which  Jerome  repeats  but  calls 
it  Luitha.  The  article  before  ri''ni?  is  explained  by  Gesenius  as  having 
reference  to  the  meaning  of  the  name  as  an  appellative,  the  boarded  (town), 
but  by  Henderson  with  more  probabiHty  as  properly  belonging  to  n^J?0. 
(See  Gesenius,  §  109,  1).  Horonaim  is  mentioned  only  here  and  in  Jer. 
xlviii.  3,  5,  34.  The  name  originally  means  tico  caverns,  and  is  near  akin 
to  Beth-horon,  locus  civitatis  (Gesenius,  Thes.  1.  195,  459).  As  Jeremiah 
instead  of  'D'!}  u-ay,  has  "TIll'3  descent,  it  is  not  impi'obable  that  Luhith  and 
Horonaim  were  on  opposite  faces  of  the  same  hill,  so  that  the  fugitives  on 
their  way  to  Zoar,  after  going  up  the  ascent  of  Luhith,  are  seen  going 
down  the  descent  of  Horonaim.  A  crij  of  breaking  is  explained  by  some  of 
the  rabbinical  interpreters  as  meaning  the  explosive  sound  produced  by 
clapping  the  hands  or  smiting  the  thigh.  Others  understand  it  to  mean  a 
cry  of  contrition,  i.  e.  a  penitent  and  humble  cry.  Gill  suggests  that  it  may 
mean  a  broken  cry,  i.  e.  one  interrupted  by  sighs  and  sobs.  Gesenius  makes 
it  mean  a  cry  as  of  destruction,  I.  e.  a  loud  and  bitter  crv  ;  Ivnobel,  a  cry 
(on  account)  of  destruction.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  "13^^  may  be  men- 
tioned as  the  very  word  uttered,  Hke  DOfl  in  other  cases.  The  very  unusual 
form    liyy  is  by  some  regarded  as  a  transposition  for  lyyT*  from  VV"^.     But 


818  ISAIAH  XV.  [Ver.  6. 

the  rabltins  and  the  latest  writers  are  agi'eed  that  it  is  a  derivative  of  "lIV. 
The  former  suppose  an  anomalous  redupHcatiou  of  the  first  radical.  The 
latter  regard  it  as  a  Pilpol  for  1"iy"iy\  either  by  en-or  of  transcription  or 
euphonic  change.  (See  Ewald,  §  237,  1.)  There  is  no  absurdity  in  the 
conjecture  of  Cocceius  that  this  strange  form  was  employed  here  in  allusion 
to  the  names  ^V  and  "iy"iy,  Moabitish  cities.  Junius  supposes,  still  more 
boldly,  that  the  Prophet  wishing  to  say  cry,  instead  of  using  any  ordinary 
word,  invented  the  cacophonous  one  now  in  question,  as  in  keeping  with 
the  context  and  the  feelings  it  expresses. 

6.  For  the  waters  of  Nimrim  (arc  and)  shall  he  desolations  ;  for  withered 
is  the  grass,  [/one  is  the  herbage,  verdure  there  is  none.  According  to  Vit- 
ringa,  this  verse  gives  a  reason  for  the  grief  described  in  ver.  5  as  prevail- 
ing in  the  south  of  Moab.  Maurer  makes  it  an  explanation  of  the  flight  in 
that  direction.  Hendewerk  supposes  the  description  to  be  here  at  an  end, 
and  a  statement  of  the  causes  to  begin.  It  seems  more  natural,  however, 
to  suppose,  with  Ewald  and  some  older  writers,  that  the  description  is 
itself  continued,  the  desolation  of  the  country  being  added  to  the  cap- 
ture of  the  cities  and  the  flight  of  the  inhabitants.  Aurivillius,  in  his  dis- 
sertation on  this  passage,  explains  DHDJ  as  an  appellative,  meaniug  as  in 
Ai'abic  clear,  limpid  waters.  But  all  other  writers  understand  it  as  a  proper 
name.  Grotius  takes  ''O  in  the  sense  of  pastures,  which  it  never  has. 
Lightfoot  suggests  that  the  ivaters  meant  may  be  the  hot  springs  of  this 
region,  mentioned  by  Josephus,  and  perhaps  the  same  with  those  of  vhich 
Moses  speaks  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  24,  according  to  the  best  interpretation  of 
that  passage.  It  is  more  probably  explained  by  Junius  as  the  name  of 
streams  which  met  there  (rivorum  confluentium),  and  by  others  still  u:ore 
generally  as  denoting  both  the  springs  and  running  streams  of  that  locality. 
Junius  suppUes  a  preposition  before  waters  (ad  aquas  Nimrimorum  desola- 
tiones  erunt),  but  the  true  construction  makes  it  the  subject  of  the  verb. 
The  same  writer  understands  the  plural  form  as  here  used  to  denote  the 
waters  meetuig  at  Nimrah  or  Beth-nimrah.  But  it  is  now  agreed  that 
Nimrim  is  another  name  for  the  town  itself,  which  is  mentioned  in  Num. 
xxxii.  3,  36,  and  Josh.  xiii.  27  as  a  town  of  Gad.  Vitriuga's  assumption 
of  another  town  in  the  south  of  Moab  rests  on  his  misconception  of  the 
nexus  between  this  verse  and  the  fifth.  Bochart  derives  the  name  from 
^P?  a  panther,  but  the  true  etymology  is  no  doubt  that  already  mentioned. 
Forerius  explains  ri1?DtJ*D  as  denoting  an  object  of  astonishment  and  horror, 
but  the  common  sense  of  desolations  is  no  doubt  the  true  one.  Most 
writers  since  Vitringa  understand  the  Prophet  as  alluding  to  the  practice  of 
stopping  fountains  and  wasting  fields  in  war.  (Compare  2  Kings  iii.  19,  25.) 
But  Ewald  and  others  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  eflects  of  drought.  This 
is  a  question  which  the  Prophet's  own  words  leave  undecided.  The  second 
*3  is  translated  so  that  by  Luther,  and  by  the  Septuagint,  hecatisc  by  the 
Vulgate,  i/ea  by  Augusti,  while  Calvin  omits  both.  The  translation  of  the 
first  verb  as  a  future  and  the  others  as  preterites  seems  to  make  the  deso- 
lation of  the  waters  not  the  cause  but  the  ell'ect  of  the  decay  of  vegetation. 
It  is  better,  therefore,  to  adopt  the  present  or  descriptive  form  throughout 
the  verse,  as  all  the  latest  writers  do.  "I^^'H  is  not  hay,  as  Luther  and  the 
English  version  give  it,  but  mature  grass,  t<t^n  the  springing  herbage,  P"l* 
greenness  or  verdure  in  general.  Ewald  and  Henderson  neglect  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  last  two  words.  The  whole  is  given  with  great  precision 
in  the  Vulgate  :  herha,  germen,  viror.      The  Septuagint  also  has  x''»'^^^ 


Ver.  7,  8.]  ISAIAH  XV.  319 

7.  Therefore  (because  the  country  can  no  longer  be  inhabited)  the  re- 
mainder of  what  (cacJi)  one  has  made  (/,  e.  acquired),  and  their  hoard  (or 
store),  over  the  brook  of  the  icilloics  theij  carry  them  away.  Not  one  of  the 
ancient  versions  has  given  a  coherent  or  iuteUigent  rendering  of  this  obscure 
sentence.  Jerome  suggests  three  different  interpretations  of  D''2"iy  7n3  j 
first,  the  brook  of  the  Arabians  or  of  the  Ravens  (Q''3">y)  who  fed  Ehjah  ; 
then,  the  brook  of  the  willows  in  the  proper  sense ;  and  lastly,  Babylon, 
the  plains  of  which  were  full  of  willows  (Ps.  cxxxvii.  2).  The  fu'st  of  these 
is  adopted  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who  translates  it  Rabenbach  (Raveubrook)  ; 
the  last  by  Bochart,  Yitringa,  and  others ;  the  second  by  most  interpreters. 
A  new  interpretation  is  proposed  by  Hitzig,  viz.  brook  or  valley  of  the 
deserts,  supposed  to  be  the  same  with  the  brook  or  valley  of  the  plain  men- 
tioned, Amos  vi.  14.  It  is  now  commonly  agreed  that  whatever  be  the 
meaning  of  the  name,  it  denotes  the  Wady  el  Ahsa  of  Burckhardt  (the 
Wady  el  Ahsy  of  Robinson  and  Smith),  running  into  the  Dead  Sea  near  its 
southern  extremity,  and  forming  the  boundary  between  Kerek  and  Gebal, 
coiTesponding  to  the  ancient  Moab  and  Edom. — mn^  may  either  mean 
what  is  left  by  the  enemy,  or  the  sm-plus  of  then-  ordinaiy  gains.  The  D  in 
DISC*  is  regarded  by  Henderson  as  the  old  termination  of  the  verb.  All 
other  wi-iters  seem  to  look  upon  it  as  the  suffix  referring  to  nin*  and  nnpS, 
■which  are  then  to  be  construed  as  nominatives  absolute.  The  older  writers 
make  the  enemy  the  subject  of  the  verb  ;  the  modeiTis  the  Moabites  them- 
selves; On  the  whole,  the  most  probable  meaning  of  the  verse  is  that  the 
Moabites  shall  carry  what  they  can  save  of  their  possessions  into  the  adja- 
cent land  of  Edom. — Kimchi  points  out  an  ellipsis  of  the  relative  before 
i^^V,  precisely  similar  to  that  in  our  colloquial  Enghsh.  Clericus  coolly 
inserts  not  and  enemies  in  the  first  clause,  both  which  he  says  are  necessary 
to  the  sense. 

8.  The  lamentation  is  not  confined  to  any  one  part  of  the  country'.  For 
the  cry  goes  round  the  border  of  Moab  ( i.  e.  entu'ely  surrounds  it)  ;  even  to 
Eglaim  (is)  its  holding  (heard),  and  to  Beer  Elim  its  howling.  The  mean- 
ing, as  Hendewerk  observes,  is  not  that  the  land  is  externally  surrounded 
by  lamentation,  but  that  lamentation  fills  it.  Vatablus  understands  the 
cry  here  spoken  of  to  be  the  shout  of  battle,  contrary  to  usage  and  the 
context.  Piscator  makes  ^"1^^^  mean  the  confluence  of  the  Amon  or  the 
streams  that  form  it,  called  I13"1><  CTTIiH  in  Num.  xxi.  14,  and  connected 
there  with  Beer.  All  others  understand  it  as  the  name  of  a  town.  Rosen- 
mliller  and  Gesenius  identify  it  with  the  '  AyaXXsi/jb  of  Eusebius,  eight  miles 
south  of  Areopolis,  and  not  far  from  the  southern  boundary  of  Moab.  Josephus 
also  mentions  " AyaWa  in  connection  with  Zoar.  As  these,  however,  must 
have  been  within  the  Moabitish  territory,  Hitzig  and  the  later  German 
writers  make  E'^r/rtwi  the  same  with  En-eglaim  (Ezek.  xlvii.  10).  The  dif- 
ferent orthography  of  the  two  names  is  noticed  by  none  of  these  interpre- 
ters ;  and  Henderson,  who  adopts  the  same  opinion,  merely  says  that  "  the 
change  of  i<  and  V  is  too  frequent  to  occasion  any  difficulty." — Beer  EUm, 
the  well  of  the  mighty  ones  or  heroes,  the  same  that  "  the  princes  and 
nobles  of  the  people  digged  with  their  staves  "  (Numb.  xxi.  18).  This 
explanation,  suggested  by  Junius,  is  adopted  by  Vitringa  and  the  later 
writers,  as  the  situation  in  Numbers  agrees  well  with  the  context  here. 
The  word  ''^^3  (substantially  equivalent  to  D^X'  and  D^2n3,  the  words  used 
in  Numbers)  may  have  been  specially  applied  to  the  chiefs  of  Moab,  as  the 
phi-ase  3X1D  '•pN  occurs  in  the  song  of  Miriam,  Exod.  xv.  15.     The  map- 


820  ISAIAH  XV.  [Yer.  9. 

pik  in  tlic  final  letter  of  TWb?''  is  wanting  in  some  manuscripts  and  editions. 
Anrivillius  rej^'ards  it  as  a  paragogic  termination  (compare  Ps.  iii.  3,  cxxv. 
3),  but  other  interpreters  follow  the  ancient  versions  in  making  it  a  suffix  re- 
ferring to  I\Ioab.  Henderson  necdlcssh'  departs  in  two  points  from  the  form 
of  the  original,  by  introducing  a  masculine  pronoun  (his  waiHng),  and  by 
varying  the  last  noun  (wailing,  lamentation)  on  the  ground  that  the  repeti- 
tion would  have  a  bad  cflfcct  in  English.  The  suffix  in  nn??*  may  possibly 
refer  to  npyt  and  mean  the  howling  sound  of  it  {i.  e.  the  cry). 

9.  The  expressions  gi-ow  still  stronger.  Not  only  is  the  land  full  of 
tumult  and  disorder,  fear  and  flight ;  it  is  also  stained  with  caniage  and 
threatened  with  new  evils.  For  the  icaters  of  Dimon  are  full  of  blood  ;  for 
In-ill  hrlnrj  upon  Dimon  additions  (i.e.  additional  evils),  on  the  escaped 
(literally,  the  escape)  of  Moab  a  lion  ;  and  o)t  the  remnant  of  the  land 
(those  left  in  it,  or  remaining  of  its  population).  It  is  an  ingenious  con- 
jecture of  Junius  that  the  Dimon  is  the  stream  mentioned  2  Kings  iii. 
20,  22,  in  which  case  the  meaning  of  the  clause  would  be,  this  stream 
shall  not  be  merely  red  as  it  then  was,  but  really  full  of  blood.  Jerome  says, 
however,  that  the  town  Dibon,  mentioned  in  ver.  2,  was  also  called  Dimon 
in.  his  day,  by  a  common  permutation  of  the  labials.  The  latter  form  may 
have  been  preferred,  in  allusion  to  the  word  CT.  following.  According  to 
this  view,  the  Prophet  here  returns  to  the  place  first  named,  and  ends 
where  he  began.  By  the  waters  of  Dimon  or  Dibon,  most  writers  under- 
stand the  Arnon,  near  the  north  bank  of  which  the  town  was  built,  as  the 
I'iver  Kishon  is  called  the  luaters  of  Megiddo  (Judges  v.  19).  Hitzig  thinks 
it  more  probable  that  there  was  a  pool  or  reservoir  at  Dibon,  as  there  was 
at  Heshbon  according  to  Cant.  vii.  5,  and  according  to  modern  travellers  at 
Mab  and  Medeba  likewise.  Those  who  take  Dimon  as  the  name  of  a  river 
give  to  ri"l2D13  the  specific  meaning  of  more  blood.  Grotius  explains  it,  I 
will  give  a  new  reason  for  its  being  called  Dimon  (i.e.  bloody).  Gesenius 
also  admits  the  probability  of  such  an  allusion,  on  the  ground  that  the  verb 
^PJ,  from  which  ri'"l£D13  is  derived,  often  includes  the  meaning  of  some  pre- 
ceding word  (Job  XX.  9,  xxxiv.  32).  Grotius  and  Bochart  understand  the 
last  clause  literally  as  a  threat  that  God  would  send  lions  (or  according  to 
Piscator,  wild  beasts  in  general)  to  destroy  the  people,  a  judgment  else- 
where threatened  (Lev.  xxvi.  22  ;  Jer.  xv.  8)  and  inflicted  (2  Kings  xvii. 
25,  26).  But  the  later  writers  seem  agreed  that  this  is  a  strong  figurative 
expression  for  the  further  evils  to  be  sufiered  at  the  hand  of  human  enemies. 
Hitzig  supposes  Judah  to  be  called  a  lion  in  allusion  to  the  prophecy  in 
Gen.  xlix.  9.  Cocceius  and  Vitringa  understand  it  to  mean  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, whose  conquest  of  the  Moabites,  though  not  historically  recorded, 
may  be  gathered  from  such  passages  as  Jer.  iv.  7,  xlix.  28,  xxv.  11-21, 
xxvii.  3,  6.  In  itself  the  figure  is  applicable  to  any  conqueror,  and  may 
be  indefinitely  understood,  not  in  reference  however  to  the  same  inflictions 
just  described,  as  llosenmiiller  and  Gesenius  think,  but  with  respect  to 
new  inflictions  not  specifically  mentioned  though  distinctly  intimated  in  the 
word  niDD13.  The  Scptuagint  makes  IT'nX  and  HJDIX  both  proper  names, 
Ariel  and  Advuih.  According  to  Jerome  and  Theodoret,  Ar  or  Areopolis 
was  sometimes  called  Ariel,  while  Moab  as  descended  from  Lot  might  be 
described  as  the  remnant  or  survivor  of  Admah,  one  of  the  cities  of  the 
plain.  Both  these  interpretations  are  adopted  by  Lowth,  and  the  last  by 
Cocceius  and  J.  D.  Michaelis. 


Vee.  l.J  ISAIAH  ATI.  321 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

This  chapter  opens  with  an  exhortation  to  the  Moabites  to  seek  protec- 
tion from  their  enemies  by  renewing  their  allegiance  to  the  house  of  David, 
accompanied  by  an  intimation  that  this  prospect  of  deliverance  would  not 
in  fact  be  realised,  vers.  1-6.  From  this  transient  gleam  of  hope,  the  pro- 
phecy reverts  to  a  description  of  the  general  desolation  and  distress,  in  form 
almost  identical  with  that  in  the  foregoing  chapter,  vers.  7-12.  The  pro- 
phecy then  closes  with  a  specification  of  the  time  at  which  it  was  to  be  ful- 
filled, vers.  13,  14. 

The  needless  division  of  the  prophecy  at  this  point  seems  to  have  some 
connection  with  an  old  opinion  that  the  lamb  mentioned  in  ver.  1  is  Christ. 
A  similar  cause  appears  to  have  affected  the  division  of  the  second,  third, 
and  fourth  chapters. 

1.  In  their  extremity,  the  Moabites  exhort  one  another  to  return  to  their 
allegiance  to  the  famil}'  of  Da-vdd,  by  w^hom  they  were  subdued  and  ren- 
dered tributary  (2  Sam.  viii.  2).  When  the  kingdom  was  divided,  they 
continued  in  subjection  to  the  ten  tribes  till  the  death  of  Ahab,  paying 
yearly,  or  perhaps  at  the  accession  of  every  new  king,  a  tribute  of  a  hun- 
dred thousand  lambs  and  as  many  rams  with  the  wool  (2  Kings  iii.  4,  6). 
After  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  was  destroyed,  their  allegiance  could  be 
paid  only  to  Judah,  who  had  indeed  been  all  along  entitled  to  it.  Send  ye 
the  lamb  {i.e.  the  customary  tribute)  to  the  ruler  of  the  land  (your  rightful 
sovereign)  from  Sela  (or  Petra)  to  the  wilderness,  to  the  mowitain  of  the 
daughter  of  Z ion.  Hitzig  and  Maurer  regard  these  as  the  words  of  the 
Edomites,  with  whom  they  suppose  the  Moabites  to  have  taken  refuge. 
Petra,  it  is  true,  was  an  Idumean  city  (2  Kings  xiv.  7);  but  it  may  at  this 
time  have  been  subject  to  the  Moabites,  by  one  of  the  fluctuations  con- 
stantly taking  place  among  these  minor  powers,  or  it  may  be  mentioned  as 
a  frontier  town,  for  the  sake  of  geographical  specification.  The  older 
writers  understand  these  as  the  words  of  the  Prophet  himself;  but  Kziobel 
objects  that  both  the  Prophet  and  the  Edomites  must  have  known  that  the 
course  here  recommended  would  be  fruitless.  It  is  best  to  understand 
them,  therefore,  as  the  mutual  exhortations  of  the  Moabites  themselves  in 
their  confusion  and  alarm.  This  is  also  recommended  by  its  agreement 
with  what  goes  before  and  after.  The  verse  then  really  continues  the 
description  of  the  foregoing  chapter.  The  Septuagint  and  Peshito  render 
the  verb  in  the  first  person  singular,  /  will  send.  The  latter  also  instead 
of  "13  reads  "i^.  This  reading  is  approved  by  Lowth  and  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
who  understand  the  verse  as  meaning  that  even  if  the  son  of  the  ruler  of 
the  land  {i.e.  of  the  king  of  Moab)  should  go  upon  an  embassy  of  peace 
to  Jerusalem,  he  would  not  obtain  it.  Others  suppose  the  flight  of  the 
king's  son  to  be  mentioned  as  an  additional  trait  in  the  prophetic  picture. 
But  this  departure  from  the  common  text  is  wholly  unnecessary.  Forerius 
and  Malvenda  suppose  "i2  to  mean  a  battering-ram,  or  take  it  as  a  figura- 
tive term  for  soldiery  or  military  force.  Cahan  understands  by  it  a  sacri- 
ficial lamb  to  be  offered  to  Jehovah  as  the  ruler  of  the  earth,  in  token  of 
repentance  and  submission.  Most  other  writers  understand  the  tribute  of 
lambs  paid  by  Moab  to  the  kings  of  Israel,  and  Barnes  combines  this  sense 
with  that  before  it,  by  supposing  that  the  Jews  exacted  lambs  from  tribu- 
tary' powers,  in  order  to  supply  the  altar  with  victims.     Jerome  puts  «'tJ'D 

VOL.  I.  X 


322  ISAIAH  XYI.  [Yer.  2. 

in  apposition  with  "^3,  and  understands  the  verse  as  a  prayer  or  a  predic- 
tion, that  God  would  send  forth  Christ,  the  lamb,  the  ruler  of  the  land  (or 
earth).  Others  take  ?t^'D  as  a  vocative,  used  collectively  for  Dvt^'O  ;  send, 
O  ye  rulers  of  the  land.  Most  modem  writers  make  it  either  a  genitive 
(the  lanih  of  the  ruler),  i.  e.  due,  belonging  to  him,  or  a  dative  {to  or  for  the 
ruler  of  the  land),  a  common  construction  after  verbs  expressing  or  imply- 
ing motion.  Clericus  supposes  the  ruler  of  the  land  to  be  Nebuchadnezzar 
as  the  conqueror  of  Judah.  Sela,  which  properly  denotes  a  rode,  is  now 
commonly  agreed  to  be  here  used  as  the  name  of  the  city  Petra,  the 
ancient  capital  of  Idumea,  so  called  because  surrounded  by  impassable 
rocks,  and  to  a  great  extent  hewn  in  the  rock  itself.  It  is  described  by 
Strabo,  Diodorus,  and  Josephus  as  a  place  of  extensive  trade.  The  Greek 
form  nerfa  is  supposed  to  have  given  name  to  Arabia  Petrcea  in  the  old 
geography.  If  so,  the  explanation  of  that  name  as  meaning  stony,  and  as 
descriptive  of  the  soil  of  the  whole  country,  must  be  incorrect.  Petra  was 
conquered  by  Trajan,  and  rebuilt  by  Haclrian,  on  whose  coins  its  name  is 
still  extant.  It  was  afterwards  a  bishop's  see,  but  had  ceased  to  be  in- 
habited before  the  time  of  the  crusades.  It  was  then  entirely  lost  sight  of, 
until  Burckhardt,  in  1812,  verified  a  conjecture  of  Seetzen's,  that  the  site  of 
Petra  was  to  be  sought  in  the  valley  called  the  Wady  Musa,  one  or  two 
days'  jom-ney  south-east  of  the  Dead  Sea.  It  was  afterwards  explored  by 
Irby  and  Mangles,  and  has  since  been  often  visited  and  described.  See  in 
particular  Robinson's  Palestine,  ii.  573-580.  Grotius  supposes  Petra  to 
be  mentioned  as  an  extreme  point,  from  Petra  to  the  loilderness,  i.  e. 
throughout  the  whole  extent  of  Moab.  Ewald  understands  it  to  be  named 
as  the  most  convenient  place  for  the  purchase  of  the  lambs  requii'ed. 
Vitringa  supposes  that  the  Moabites  fed  their  flocks  in  the  wilderness  by 
which  Petra  was  surrounded.  Luther's  translation,  from  the  loilderne'is,  is 
wholly  inconsistent  -svith  the  form  of  the  original.  The  constmction  given 
by  some  of  the  old  writers,  Sela  of  the  wilderness,  disregards  the  local  or 
directive  H,  That  of  Gesenius  and  other  recent  writers,  through  or  along 
the  loilderness,  is  also  a  departure  from  the  fonn  of  the  original,  which  can 
only  mean  from  Petra  to  the  tvilderness  (and  thence)  to  mount  Zion  (or 
Jerusalem.)  Jerome  explains  the  whole  verse  as  a  prediction  of  Christ's 
descent  from  Ruth  the  Moabitcss,  the  hnnh,  the  rider  of  the  land,  sent  forth 
from  the  rock  of  the  wilderness  !  The  Targum  paraphrases  ruler  of  the 
land  by  the  Messiah  (or  anointed)  of  Israel,  which  may  possibly  mean 
nothing  more  than  king. 

2.  This  verse  assigns  the  ground  or  reason  of  the  exhortation  in  the  one 
before  it.  And  it  shall  he  (or  come  to  pass)  like  a  bird  wandering,  (like) 
a  nest  cast  out,  shall  be  the  daughters  of  Moab,  the  fords  of  Arnon.  The 
construction  cast  out  from  the  nest  is  inconsistent  with  the  form  of  the 
original.  Ne^t  may  be  understood  as  a  poetical  term  for  its  contents.  The 
nidi  edaces  of  Virgil  are  analogous.  There  are  three  interpretations  of 
3K1D  n"i32.  1.  The  first  gives  the  words  the  geographical  sense  of  villages 
or  dependent  towns.  {Vide  supra,  chap.  iii.  IG,  iv.  4.)  To  this  it  has 
been  objected  that  ri3  has  this  sense  ouh'  when  it  stands  in  connection 
with  the  metropolis  or  mother  city.  Ewald  and  Hitzig  modify  this  inter- 
pretation by  making  daiu/hters  mean  the  several  communities  or  neigh- 
bourhoods of  which  the  nation  was  composed.  2.  The  second  explanation 
makes  it  mean  the  people  generally,  here  called  daughters,  as  the  whole 
population  is  elsewhere  called  daughter.  3.  The  third  gives  the  words 
their  strict  sense  as  denoting  the  female  inhabitants  of  Moab,  whose  flight 


Veb.  3.]  ISAIAH  XVI  S23 

and  suiferings  arc  a  sufficient  index  to  the  state  of  things.  In  the  absence 
of  any  conclusive  reason  for  dissenting  from  this  strict  and  proper  sense  of 
the  expressions,  it  is  entitled  to  the  preference.  n"i~i3yD  is  not  a  participle 
agreeing  ^vith  ni32,  passing  (or  when  they  pass)  the  Ai'non  ;  nor  does  it 
mean  the  two  sides  of  the  river,  but  its  fords  or  passes.  Ewald  supposes 
it  to  be  put  for  the  dwellers  near  the  river,  which  is  arbitrary.  Some  sup- 
pose it  to  be  governed  by  a  preposition  understood,  or  to  be  used  absolutely 
as  a  noun  of  place,  while  others  put  it  in  apposition  with  ri1J2,  "  the 
daughters  of  Moab,  the  fords  of  Arnon."  The  ^  in  the  last  word  denotes 
possession — the  fords  which  belong  to  Arnon.  This  is  mentioned  as  the 
principal  stream  of  Moab.  Whether  at  this  time  it  ran  through  the  coun- 
try, or  was  its  northern  boundary,  is  doubtful. 

3.  Most  of  the  older  writers,  from  Jerome  downwards,  understand  this 
verse  as  a  continuation  of  the  advice  to  the  Moabites,  in  which  they  are 
urged  to  act  with  prudence  as  well  as  justice,  to  take  counsel  (^.  e.  provide 
for  their  own  safety)  as  well  as  execute  judgment  {i.  e.  act  right  towards 
others).  In  other  words,  they  are  exhorted  to  prepare  for  the  day  of  their 
own  calamity,  by  exercising  mercy  towards  the  Jews  in  theirs.  Cahin 
adopts  this  general  \-iew  of  the  meaning  of  the  verse,  but  interprets  it 
ironically  as  he  does  the  first,  and  understands  the  Prophet  as  intending  to 
reproach  the  Moabites  sarcastically  for  their  cruel  treatment  of  the  Jewish 
fugitives  in  former  times.  This  forced  interpretation,  which  is  certainly 
unworthy  of  its  author,  seems  to  have  found  favour  with  no  other.  It  is  not 
the  first  case  in  which  Calvin  has  allowed  his  exposition  to  be  man'ed  by 
the  gratuitous  assumption  of  a  sarcastic  and  ironical  design.  Gesenius  and 
most  of  the  later  writers  follow  Saadias  in  regarding  this  verse  as  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Moabitish  suppliants  or  messengers,  addressed  to  Judah.  1N''3n 
^"^V  they  explain  to  mean  hrinci  counsel,  i.e.  counsel  us,  and  execute  justice, 
i.  e.  treat  us  justl}'.  Hitzig  takes  n?vD  in  the  sense  of  intervention  (inter- 
pose between  the  parties),  Maurer  in  that  of  intercession,  Hendewerk  in 
that  of  decision.  According  to  Aben  Ezra,  i^'^V  1X''3n  means  apply  or 
exercise  your  understanding  (Ps.  xc.  12) ;  according  to  Vitringa,  apply 
prudence  to  your  conduct,  /.  e.  regulate  it  prudently.  The  explanation  of 
the  verse  as  the  words  of  the  Moabites  addressed  to  the  Jews,  is- favoured 
by  the  foregoing  context,  which  relates  throughout  to  the  sufi"erings  of 
Moab,  whereas  on  the  other  supposition,  the  Prophet  suddenly  exhorts  the 
sufferers  to  harbour  the  fugitives  of  that  ver}^  nation,  with  whom  they  had 
themselves  been  exhorted  to  seek  refuge.  This  interpretation  also  relieves 
us  from  the  necessity  of  determining  historically  what  particular  afiliction 
of  the  Israelites  or  Jews  is  here  referred  to,  a  question  which  has  occasioned 
much  perplexity,  and  which  can  be  solved  only  by  conjecture.  According 
to  Vitringa,  the  passage  refers  to  the  invasion  of  Reuben,  Gad,  and  Manas- 
seh,  by  Tiglath-Pileser  in  the  fourth  year  of  Ahaz  (2  Kings  xv.  29),  and 
also  to  the  invasion  of  Judah  by  the  Edomites  about  the  same  time  (2  Chron. 
xxviii.  17).  Others  refers  the  passage  to  Sennacherib's  invasion  of  Judah, 
and  others  to  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  Knobel  supposes  the  object  of 
address  to  be  the  Edomites.  As  noonday  heat  is  a  common  oriental  figure 
to  denote  distress  (Isa.  iv.  6,  xxv.  4,  xxxii.  2),  so  a  shadow  is  relief  from 
it.  Possibly,  however,  the  allusion  here  is  to  the  light  of  noonday,  and  the 
shadow  dark  as  night  denotes  concealment.  If  so,  the  clause  is  equivalent  in 
meaning  to  the  one  which  follows.  Some  of  those  who  adopt  the  other  sense 
suppose  a  chmax  in  the  sentence.  Relieve,  refresh  the  sufferers — or  at  least 
conceal  them — or  if  that  is  too  much  to  ask,  at  least  do  not  betray  them. 


324  ISAIAH  XVL  [Veb.  4,  5. 

4.  Let  my  outcasts,  Moah,  sojou))i  tiith  thee;  be  thou  a  revert  (rehv^a  or 
hidiii','- place)  to  them  from  the  face  (or  ])reseuce)  of  the  spuiler  (or  oppressor)  : 
for  the  exlorlioner  is   at  an   end,   oppression  has   ceased,  consumed  are   the 

trumplers  out  of  the  land.  Here,  as  in  the  precedinj^  verse,  the  sense  de- 
pends upon  the  object  of  address.  If  it  be  Moab,  as  the  older  writers  held, 
the  outcasts  referred  to  are  the  outcasts  of  Israel.  If  the  address  1)6  to 
Israel,  the  outcasts  are  those  of  Moab.  The  latter  interpretation  seems  to 
be  irreconcileable  with  the  phrase  3N1D  "'n'^J.  Gesenius  disregards  the  accent 
and  supposes  an  ellipsis  before  Moab  :  nay  outcasts,  even  those  of  Moab. 
So  also  Rosenmliller  and  Hendewerk.  The  other  recent  German  writers 
follow  Lowth  in  readii)}:^  3X'"I0  ^n'^)  outcasts  of  Moah,  a  construction  found 
in  all  the  ancient  versions.  Maiu'er,  without  a  change  of  vowels,  explains 
"'H'^?  as  an  old  form  of  the  plural  construct.  Calvin  gives  the  verbs  in  the 
last  clause  a  past  or  present  sense,  and  supposes  the  first  clause  to  be 
ironical.  As  if  he  had  said,  "  Yes,  give  them  shelter  and  protection  now, 
now  when  their  oppressor  is  destroyed,  and  they  have  no  need  of  assistance. 
Ewiild  also  takes  the  preterite  strictly,  but  understands  the  second  clause 
to  mean  that  the  Moabites  wei-e  encouraged  thus  to  ask  aid  of  Judah,  be- 
cause the  former  oppressive  government  had  ceased  there,  and  a  better  reign 
begun,  more  fully  described  in  the  next  verse.  But  most  interpreters, 
ancient  and  modern,  give  the  verbs  in  this  last  clause  a  future  sense.  As 
if  he  had  said,  "  Give  the  fugitives  a  shelter  ;  they  will  not  need  it  long, 
for  the  extortioner  will  soon  cease,"  &c.  This  gives  an  appropriate  sense, 
whether  the  words  be  addressed  to  Israel  or  Moab.  Some  who  adopt  the 
same  construction  supply  the  ellipsis  in  another  way.  "  Fear  not  to 
shelter  them,  for  the  oppressor  will  soon  cease,"'  &c.  Knobel  explains  the 
clause  as  an  assurance,  on  the  part  of  the  Moabites,  that  they  would  no 
longer  vex  or  oppress  Edom,  to  whom  he  imagines  that  the  words  are  ad- 
dressed. The  collective  construction  of  DP")  with  -I^J?  is  not  uncommon  in 
the  case  of  participles.     (Ewald,  §  599.) 

5.  This  verse  contains  a  promise,  that  if  the  Jews  afJbrded  shelter  to 
the  fugitives  of  Moab,  their  ovm  government  should  be  strengthened  by  this 
exercise  of  mercy,  and  their  national  prosperity  promoted  by  the  appearance 
of  a  king  in  the  family  of  David,  who  should  possess  the  highest  qualifica- 
tions of  a  moral  kind  for  the  regal  office.  And  a  throne  shall  be  established 
in  viercij  ;  and  one  shall  sit  upon  it  in  truth  iu  the  tent  of  David,  judijiufj  and 
seeking  justice,  and  prompt  in  equitij.  Knobel  supposes  the  throne  here 
meant  to  be  that  of  the  Jewish  viceroj-  in  Edom,  called  a  t32L*',  to  distinguish 
him  from  the  7lr'^  or  lord  paramount.  Clericus  fancies  an  allusion  to  Gcda- 
liah,  who  was  appointed  viceroy  of  Judah  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  Barnes, 
who  follows  the  old  writers  in  making  Moab  the  object  of  address,  under- 
stands this  as  a  promise  that  the  Jewish  government  would  hereafter  exercise 
kindness  towards  the  Moabites.  Grotius  understands  this  verse  as  a  pro- 
mise to  the  Moabites  that  their  throne  should  be  established  (if  they  har- 
boured the  Jewish  refugees)  in  the  tabernacle  of  I'avid,  i.  e.  under  the 
shadow  or  protection  of  his  family.  But  the  tabcraaclc  of  Bavid  has  no 
doubt  the  same  meaning  here  as  the  analogous  expression  in  Amos  ix.  11. 
]}arnes's  translation,  citadel  (f  David,  is  entii'ely  gratuitous.  Most  writers 
understand  it  as  a  promise  of  stability  to  Judah  itself.  Some  suppose  a 
reference  to  Hezekiah  ;  but  the  analogy  of  other  cases  makes  it  probable 
that  the  words  were  intended  to  include  a  reference  to  all  the  good  kings  of 
the  house  of  David,  not  excepting  the  last  king  of  that  race,  to  whom  God 
was  to  give  the  throne  of  his  father  David,  who  was  to  reign  over  the  house 


Vkr.  6,  7.J  ISAIAH  XVI.  325 

of  Jacob  for  ever,  and  of  whose  kingdom  there  should  be  no  end'"  (Luke  i.  32, 
33).  Hence  the  indefinite  expression  one  shall  sit,  i.  e.  there  shall  always 
be  one  to  sit  on  David's  throne.  It  is  true  that  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  the 
later  Germans  make  2?^'^  agree  with  t3??b'  as  a  noun — there  shall  sit  thereon 
a  judge,  &c.  But  this  construction  is  forbidden  b}'  the  position  of  the  latter 
word,  and  by  its  close  connection  with  t^'^'■^,  which  can  only  be  construed 
as  a  participle. 

6.  We  have  heard  the  pride  of  Moah,  the  very  proud,  his  haughtiness,  and 
his  pride,  and  his  ivrath,  the  falsehood  of  his  pretensions.  Those  wi'iters  who 
suppose  Moab  to  be  addressed  in  the  preceding  verses,  understand  this  as 
a  reason  for  believing  that  he  will  not  follow  the  advice  just  given.  As  if 
he  had  said,  "It  is  vain  to  recommend  this  merciful  and  just  course,  for 
we  have  heard,"  &c.  But  the  modern  writers  who  regard  what  immediately 
precedes  as  the  language  addressed  by  the  Moabitish  fugitives  to  Judah, 
explain  this  as  a  reason  for  rejecting  their  petition.  In  the  second  clause 
the  English  Version  supplies  the  substantive  verb,  he  is  very  proud.  A 
simpler  construction  is  adopted  by  most  writers,  which  connects  it  imme- 
diately with  what  precedes.  Knobel  makes  it  agree  with  pXJ,  but  Ewald 
more  naturally  with  3X1)0.  The  four  derivatives  of  one  root  in  this  sentence 
are  imitated  in  Henderson's  paraphrase  :  haughtiness,  hauyhtij,  high-minded- 
ness,  hauteur.  Most  modern  writers  are  agreed  that  1?  is  here  an  adjective 
meaning  right  or  true,  and  that  in  combination  with  the  negative  it  forms  a 
compound  noun  meaning  vanity  ov  fahehood.  Dn3  is  variously  explained 
as  denoting  lies,  vain  pretensions,  plausible  speeches,  idle  talk,  all  which 
ideas  are  perhaps  included.  Barnes  introduces  an  interjection  in  the  second 
clause  («/(  .'  his  haughtiness !  &c.),  but  the  true  construction  is  no  doubt 
the  common  one,  which  governs  these  nouns  by  W^^.  This  is  also  the 
simplest  construction  of  the  last  clause:  "  we  have  heard  the  falsehood 
of  his  vain  pretensions."  It  is  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  supply  either  are 
or  shall  he. 

7.  Therefore  (because  thus  rejected)  Moab  shall  hoivlfor  Moab  ;  all  of  it 
shall  howl ;  for  the  grapes  (or  raisin-cakes)  of  Kir-hareseth  shall  ye  sigh  (or 
moan),  only  {i.  e.  altogether)  smitten.  Umbreit  and  others  make  ?''''''*  a 
descriptive  present  (Moab  howls).  Others,  as  De  Wette,  read  must  howl ; 
Henderson,  may  howl  ;  Ewald,  let  Moab  howl.  There  is,  however,  no  suffi- 
cient reason  for  departing  from  the  strict  sense  of  the  future. — Jerome  and 
Clericus  take  ?  in  the  sense  of  to,  Knobel  in  that  of  as  to  or  as  for,  making 
3S1D  an  absolute  nominative — as  for  Moab,  it  shall  howl — equivalent  in 
emphasis  to  Moab,  yes,  3Ioab  shall  howl.  For  an  example  of  the  same 
construction,  he  refers  to  chap,  xxxii.  1 ;  but  as  it  is  confessedly  a  rare 
one,  and  as  there  is  no  necessity  for  assuming  it  in  this  case,  it  is  better  to 
adhere  to  the  common  interpretation  of  3*^1^0?,  as  denoting  the  subject  or 
occasion  of  the  lamentation.  By  3Ioab  howling  for  Moab,  Jerome  under- 
stands the  mutual  lamentations  of  the  city  and  the  provinces,  or  town  and 
country ;  Barnes,  the  alternate  responses  of  one  part  to  another  in  their 
lamentation ;  others  simply  the  mourning  of  one  Moabite  for  another.  The 
idea  may  be  that  the  nation  of  Moab  mourns  for  the  land  of  Moab,  but  the 
simplest  supposition  is  that  Moab  for  Moab  means  Moab  for  itself.  The 
English  version  of  Hpa  [every  one),  overlooks  the  suffix,  which  is  also  the 
case  wdth  the  simple  version  all,  and  the  distributive  paraphrase  of  Clericus 
(quotquot  sunt).  The  form  of  the  original  is  retained  by  Ewald  (ganz  es 
jammre),  let  it  all  lament.  The  next  clause  Clericus  translates,  to  (or  at) 
the  walls  of  Kir-hareseth  ye  shall  talk  (ad  muros  coUoqaemini).     But  all 


326  ISAIAR  XYL  [Ver.  8. 

the  later  writers  give  the  particle  the  sense  oifor,  as  in  the  first  clause,  and 
the  verb  that  of  s/r/A  or  ;«ort«.  The  word  ''£i'"'EJ'S  seems  to  have  perplexed 
the  old  translators,  some  of  whom  confound  it  with  the  verb  IC^'^C',  or  one 
of  its  derivatives.  Thus  the  Vulgate  has  his  qui  laetnntur  super  uutros  cacti 
lalcris.  Lowth  and  Dathe  read  ^CJ'JN  on  the  authority  of  Jer.  xlvii.  31. 
But  in  all  such  cases  of  imitation  or  reconstruction  which  occur  in  Scrip- 
ture,  there  are  many  intentional  and  significant  changes  of  one  word  for 
another  similar  in  form  but  ditierent  in  sense.  For  a  clear  and  ample  illus- 
tration of  this  practice,  see  Heugstenberg's  comparison  of  Psalm  xviii.  with 
2  Sam.  xxii.  in  his  Commentary  on  the  former.  Vitringa  takes  ''tJ'^t'N  in 
the  sense  of  wine-flagons,  and  this  interpretation  is  approved  by  most  of 
the  early  writers,  who  suppose  ^JJ'"'ti'X  to  have  here  the  same  sense  as  D''J^'''E^'K 
and  ^11^''C^*^*  elsewhere  (Hosea  iii.  1  ;   Cant.  ii.  5  ;    Comp.  2  Sam.  vi.  19 ; 

1  Chron.  xvi.  3).  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  the  later  Germans  give  the  word  in 
this  one  case  the  sense  oi  foundations  (equivalent  in  this  connection  to  ruins) 
derived  from  an  Arabic  analogy.  Cocceius  curiously  combines  the  two 
ideas  by  explaining  the  word  to  mean  the  props  or  supports  of  the  vines 
(sustentacula  uvarum).  Ewald  and  Ivnobel  have  returned  to  the  old  inter- 
pretation, except  that  they  explain  the  word  wherever  it  occurs  to  mean, 
not  flasks  or  flagons,  but  cakes  of  grapes  or  raisins  pressed  together.  This 
allusion  to  grapes  agi-ces  well  with  the  subsequent  mention  of  the  vines  of 
Moab.  The  other  interpretation  is  favoured  by  the  meaning  of  the  name 
Kir-haresrth  (a  wall  of  earth  or  brick).     The  same  place  is  mentioned  in 

2  Kings  iii.  25,  and  is  no  doubt  identical  with  Kir-Moah  (chap.  xv.  1), 
which  latter  form  may  have  been  used  to  correspond  with  the  parallel  name 
Ar-Moab.  The  particle  "^fc?,  which  is  variously  rendered  hut  (Clericus),/fr 
(Barnes),  surely  (English  Version),  wholly  (Henderson),  strictly  means, 
onhj,  nothing  hut,  and  is  so  translated  by  Knobel  (nur  zerschlagen),  and 
Ewald  (nichts  als  betriibt).  Knobel  applies  the  last  word  in  the  sentence 
to  the  grapes  or  raisin-cakes,  as  being  all  consumed  or  gone,  implying  the 
desolation  of  the  \ineyards.  It  is  more  natural,  however,  to  refer  it  to  the 
people,  as  being  smitten,  downcast,  and  distressed. 

8.  For  the  fields  of  Heshbon  are  withered — the  vine  of  Sibmah — the  lords 
of  the  nations  broke  doun  its  choice  plants — unto  Jazer  they  reached — they 
strayed  into  (or  through)  the  desert — its  branches — they  were  stretched  out — 
they  reached  to  (or  over)  the  sea.  Clericus  renders  pT'OK  as  a  future,  which 
destroys  the  force  of  the  description.  On  the  construction  of  ^^^^i^  with 
niJDlty,  ride  supra,  chap.  iii.  12.  Sihnah  is  mentioned,  Num.  xxxii.  38, 
Joshua  xiii.  19,  and  in  the  former  place  joined  with  Nebo,  which  occurs 
above,  chap.  xv.  2.  It  had  been  taken  by  the  Amorites,  but  was  probably 
again  recovered.  Eusebius  speaks  of  it  as  a  town  of  Gilead,  and  Jerome 
describes  it  as  not  more  than  half  a  mile  from  Heshbon.  For  vya  the 
LXX.  have  xaTwrrhovrtg,  confounding  it,  as  Clericus  observes,  with  ^y?3. 
Heathen,  in  the  modern  sense,  is  not  a  coiTect  version  of  D^IJ,  as  the  Moab- 
ites  themselves  were  heathen.  According  to  the  English  Version,  it  would 
seem  to  be  the  lords  of  the  nations  who  came  to  Jazer,  wandered  through 
the  wilderness,  &c.  All  this,  however,  is  really  predicted  of  the  vines,  the 
luxuriant  growth  of  which  is  the  subject  of  the  following  clauses.  As  the 
verb  D"?n  is  used,  chap,  xxviii.  1,  to  express  the  intoxicating  power  of  wine, 
Cocceius  gives  it  that  sense  here,  and  makes  it  agree  with  n''p"iX"  as  its  sub- 
ject :  the  choice  vines  of  Sibmah  overcame  the  rulers  of  the  nations,  /.  e. 
the  wine  was  drunk  at  royal  tables.     This  ingenious  exposition  is  adopted 


Yer.  9.]  ISAIAH  XVI.  327 

by  Vitringa,  Lowth,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  Hendewerk,  De  Wette,  Knobel,  on  the 
ground  of  its  agreement  with  the  subsequent  praises  of  the  vine  of  Sibmah. 
Gesenius  objects  that  there  is  then  no  mention  of  the  wasting  of  the  vine- 
yards by  the  enemy,  unless  this  can  be  supposed  to  be  included  in  ??t3N. 
Besides  Gesenius,  Rosenmiiller,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  most  of  the  older 
writers,  make  rfpllw'  the  object  of  the  verb.  On  the  meaning  of  the  noun 
itself  compare  what  is  said  of  the  cognate  from  P"l1t^',  supra,  chap.  v.  2. 
Jazer  is  mentioned  Num.  xxi.  32,  and  described  by  Eusebius  as  fifteen  miles 
from  Heshbon,  and  ten  west  of  Philadelphia,  on  a  stream  running  into  the 
Jordan.  It  is  here  mentioned  as  a  northern  point,  the  desert  and  the  sea 
representing  the  east  and  the  west  or  south.  Knobel  infers  from  this  that 
Sibmah  was  a  well-known  centre  of  wine-culture.  In  the  absence  of  a  pre- 
position before  "I3^D,  it  may  be  rendered  either  throiujli  the  ivilderness,  or 
simply  into  it.  Knobel  supposes  the  word  stray  or  wander  to  be  used  be- 
cause the  wilderness  is  pathless.  The  exact  sense  of  nnx*  is  things  sent 
forth,  or  as  Clericus  expresses  it,  missiones.  "l^y  without  a  preposition  some- 
times denotes  the  act  of  passing  simply  to  a  place,  and  this  sense  is  adopted 
here  by  the  Septuagint  and  Henderson.  But  most  writers  adhere  to  the 
more  usual  sense  of  passing  over,  which  may  either  mean  that  the  vines 
covered  the  shore  and  overhimg  the  water,  or  that  the  luxm'iant  vineyards 
of  Moab  really  extended  beyond  the  northern  point  of  the  Dead  Sea.  In 
the  parallel  passage,  Jer.  xhiii.  32,  we  read  of  the  sea  of  Jazer.  Hender- 
son regards  the  2*  in  that  phrase  as  an  interpolation,  a  conclusion  not  suffi- 
ciently supported  by  the  authority  of  two  Hebrew  manuscripts  and  one 
ancient  version.  The  sea  of  Jazer  may  have  been  a  lake  in  its  vicinity,  or 
even  a  reservoir,  such  as  Seetzen  found  there.  The  same  traveller  found 
an  abundant  growth  of  vines  in  the  region  here  described,  while  at  Szalt 
(the  ancient  Ramoth)  Bui'ckhardt  and  Buckingham  both  speak,  not  only  of 
the  multitude  of  grapes,  but  of  an  active  trade  in  raisins. 

9.  Therefore  I  icill  weep  with  the  xceeping  of  Jazer  (for)  the  vine  of  Sibmah. 
I  will  ti-et  thee  {with)  my  tears,  Heshbon  and  (thee)  Elealeh  !  For  upon  thy 
fruit  and  upon  thy  harvest  a  cry  has  fallen.  Some  suppose  these  to  be  the 
words  of  a  Moabite  bewailing  the  general  calamity.  There  is  no  objection, 
however,  to  the  supposition  that  the  Prophet  here  expresses  his  own  sym- 
pathy with  the  distress  of  Moab,  as  an  indirect  method  of  describing  its 
intensity.  The  emphasis  does  not  lie  merely  in  the  Prophet's  feeling  for  a 
foreign  nation,  but  in  his  feeling  for  a  guilty  race,  on  whom  he  was  inspired 
to  denounce  the  vrraih.  of  God.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  give  the  verbs 
a  present  form  ;  but  Ewald  makes  them  expressive  of  entreaty,  let  me  weep, 
&c.  There  is  no  sufficient  cause,  however,  for  departing  from  the  strict 
sense  of  the  future,  which  is  still  retained  by  Barnes  and  Henderson. 
Clericus  takes  "'331  n33X  together,  and  translates  it  flebo  in  fletu  ;  but  the 
accents  join  the  second  word,  no  doubt,  correctly,  with  what  follows.  The 
sense  is  not  that  he  will  weep  for  the  ■vine  of  Sibmah  as  he  does  for  Jazer, 
the  construction  given  by  Clericus  and  Barnes,  but  that  he  will  weep  for 
the  vines  of  Sibmah  as  Jazer  (/.  e.  the  inhabitants  of  Jazar)  did,  who  were 
particularly  interested  in  them.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing,  with  Hende- 
werk, a  reference  to  the  destruction  of  Jazer  by  the  Israelites  in  the  times 
of  Moses  (Num.  xxi.  32,  xxxii.  35).  I^ns  is  strongly  rendered  by  Jerome 
(inebriabo),  Clericus  (irrigabo),  Hendewerk  (iiberstrbme),  but  strictly  means 
to  saturate  with  moisture.  On  the  anomalous  form,  see  Gesenius,  §  74,  17, 
§  71,  7.  f^P,  which  elsewhere  means  the  fruit  of  summer  (Jer.  xl.  12, 
Amos  viii.  1),  is  used  here  and  in  chap,  xxviii.  4,  to  denote  the  ingathering 


828  ISAIAH  XVI.  [Ver.  10. 

of  the  fruit.  This  peculiar  usage  of  the  term  is  urged  by  Hendewerk  as  a 
proof  that  the  passage  was  written  by  Isaiah.  In  like  manner,  he  main- 
tains that  if  Q^n  in  ver.  8  has  the  same  sense  as  in  chap,  xxviii.  1,  as  Hitzig 
alleges,  it  is  an  incidental  proof  that  Hitzig  is  mistaken  in  denying  the 
genuineness  of  this  prophecy.  These  arguments  are  mentioned,  not  on  ac- 
count of  their  intrinsic  weight,  but  as  efl'ective  arguments  ad  hominem,  and 
as  illustrations  of  the  ease  with  which  the  weapons  of  a  fanciful  criticism 
may  be  turned  upon  itself.  *nM,  according  to  its  etymology  and  usage, 
may  be  applied  to  any  shout  or  cry  whatever,  and  is  actually  used  to  denote 
both  a  war-cry  or  alarm  (Jer.  li.  14),  and  a  joyful  shout,  such  as  that  which 
accompanies  the  vintage  (Jer.  xxv.  30).  In  the  next  verse,  it  has  clearly 
the  latter  sense,  which  some  retain  here  also,  giving  to  ?2J  the  sense  of  certs- 
in(f,  as  in  the  text  of  the  English  Version.  Others  prefer  the  former  sense, 
as  given  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible,  and  take  h]}  7D3  in  that  oifall- 
iiir/  upon  suddenly,  attacking  by  surprise,  which  is  sometimes  expressed 
elsewhere  by  3  ?23  (e.  r/.  Josh.  xi.  7).  The  latest  writers  are  agreed,  how- 
ever, that  there  is  here  an  allusion  to  both  senses  or  applications  of  the 
term,  and  that  the  thing  predicted  is,  that  instead  of  the  joyful  shout  of 
vintage  or  of  harvest,  they  should  be  surprised  by  the  cry  of  battle.  This 
idea  is  beautifully  clothed  in  another  form  by  Jeremiah  (xlviii.  33),  their 
shouting  shall  he  no  shouting,  i.  e.  not  such  as  they  expected  and  designed, 
or,  as  De  Wette  vigorously  renders  it,  war-cry,  not  harvest  cry  (Schlachtruf, 
nicht  Herbstruf).  On  the  strength  of  the  parallelism,  Knobel  gives  to  "i''^P 
the  sense  of  vintage  or  fruit-harvest,  as  in  chap,  xviii.  5.  Ewald  retains 
the  strict  sense,  and  supposes  the  two  kinds  of  ingathering  to  be  distinctly 
specified.  For  T'Vp  and  '^"^^■!,  Lowth  reads  l''^*^  and  115:^,  in  imitation  of 
Jer,  xlviii.  82,  But  the  insecurity  of  such  assimilations  has  been  shewn 
already  in  the  exposition  of  ver,  7.  The  ancient  versions,  and  especially 
the  Septuagint,  are  so  confused  and  unintelligible  here,  that  Clericus,  not 
without  reason,  represents  them  as  translating  audacter  aque  ac  absurde. 

10,  And  taken  airay  is  joy  and  gladness  from  the  fruitful  field :  and  in  the 
vineyards  shall  no  (more)  be  sung,  no  (more)  be  shouted  ;  nine  in  the  presses 
shall  the  treader  not  tread  ;  the  cry  hare  I  stilled  (or  caused  to  cease).  Hende- 
werk translates  the  rav  at  the  beginning  so  that,  in  order  to  shew  that  this 
verse  describes  the  efiect  of  what  is  threatened  in  ver.  9.  Henderson  omits 
the  particle  entirely.  It  is  best,  however,  to  give  it  its  proper  sense  of  and. 
There  is  no  need  of  departing  from  the  future  meaning  of  the  verbs  ;  but 
most  of  the  later  writers  prefer  the  descriptive  present.  The  strict  sense 
of  ^DX3  is  gathered,  and  by  implication  taken  away  from  its  former  place. 
On  the  masculine  foiTu  of  the  verb,  see  Gesenius,  §  14-4,  a.  Jerome  and 
Clericus  take  ?D"iD  as  a  proper  name,  denoting  a  cultivated  hill  like  Car- 
mel  ;  but  it  is  no  doubt  an  appellative,  as  in  chap.  x.  18.  De  Wette  and 
Knobel  give  it  here  the  specific  sense  of  orchard,  others  that  oi  fruitful  field, 
or  cultivated  ground  in  general.  According  to  Clericus,  the  verbs  in  the 
next  clause  are  active,  and  K^  equivalent  to  t^'N  kV  (nemo  vociferabitur). 
They  are  really  passive,  both  in  form  and  meaning,  and  indefinitely  con- 
strued. Barnes  and  Henderson  resolve  it  into  our  idiom  by  employing  a 
noun  and  the  substantive  verb  ;  there  shall  be  no  cry  or  shouting.  The  later 
Germans  retain  the  original  construction,  Hendewerk  explains  VV'^''  as  the 
Pual  of  yyi,  Gesenius  as  the  Palul  of  Vn.  In  the  next  clause,  Barnes,  De 
Wette,  and  Ewald,  read  no  treader,  Henderson  and  Umbreit  more  exactly 
the  treader,  leaving  the  iO  to  qualify  the  verb.     The  English  Version,  on 


Ver.  11,  12.]  ISAIAH  XVI.  329 

the  other  hand,  by  using  the  expression  no  wine,  seems  to  imply  that  the 
treading  of  the  grapes  would  not  be  followed  by  its  usual  result,  whereas 
the  meaning  is  that  the  grapes  would  not  be  trodden  at  all.  The  same 
Version  needlessly  puts  treaders  in  the  plural.  The  idiomatic  combination 
of  the  verb  and  its  participle  or  derivative  noun  (  Tnn  "I'lT')  is  not  uncom- 
mon in  Hebrew.  (See  for  example,  Ezek.  xxxlii.  4,  2  Sam.  x\-ii.  9,  Deut. 
xxii.  8.)  The  word  vats,  used  by  Barnes  and  Henderson  in  rendering  this 
clause,  is  less  appropriate  than  the  common  version  pirsses.  [Vide  supra, 
chap.  V.  2.)  The  ancient  mode  of  treading  gi'apes  is  still  preserved  in  some 
of  the  monuments  of  Egypt.  Umbreit  gives  T^n  the  general  sense  of  tu- 
mult (Getummell),  Ewald  that  of  wild  noise  (den  Wildea  Larm)  ;  but  most 
writers  understand  it  here  as  specifically  meaning  the  vintage  or  harvest- 
shout.  TlQiJ^M  may  be  rendered  either  as  a  preterite  or  present.  It  signifies 
not  merely  to  bring  to  an  end,  but  to  still  or  silence.  This  prediction  of 
course  implies  the  failure  of  the  vintage,  if  not  the  destruction  of  the 
vineyards. 

11.  Therefore  my  bowels  for  Moab  like  (he  liarp  shall,  sound,  and  my  in- 
irardsfor  Kirhares.  The  viscera  are  evidently  mentioned  as  the  seat  of  the 
affections.  Modern  usage  would  require  heart  and  bosom..  Barnes  cor- 
rectly applies  to  this  verse  the  distinction  which  philologists  have  made  be- 
tween the  ancient  usage  of  bowels  to  denote  the  upper  viscera  and  its  modern 
restriction  to  the  lower  viscera,  a  change  which  sufficiently  accounts  for  the 
different  associations  excited  by  the  same  or  equivalent  expressions,  then 
and  now.  Ewald  goes  too  far  in  softening  the  expression  when  he  translates 
W')}^  feelings.  The  comparison  is  either  with  the  sad  notes  of  a  harp,  or 
with  the  striking  of  its  strings,  which  may  be  used  to  represent  the  beat- 
ing of  the  heart  or  the  commotion  of  the  nerves.  Sound  is  not  an  ade- 
quate translation  of  '\^^\  which  conveys  the  idea  of  tumultuous  agitation. 
Clericus  understands  the  mention  of  the  bowels  as  intended  to  suggest  the 
idea  of  a  general  commotion  (totus  commovebor).  He  also  gives  to  ?  as  in 
ver.  7,  the  sense  of  ad.  Kir-hares  is  another  variation  of  the  name  written 
Kir-hareseth  in  ver.  7,  and  Kir-Moah  in  chap.  xv.  1. 

12.  From  the  impending  ruin  Moab  attempts  in  vain  to  save  himself  by 
supplication  to  his  gods.  They  are  powerless  and  he  is  desperat3.  Audit 
shall  be  (or  come  to  pass),  \vhen  Moab  has  appeared  (before  his  gods),  ichen 
he  has  wearied  hi)nself  (with  vain  oblations)  on  the  high  place,  then  (literally 
and)  he  shall  enter  into  his  sanctuary  to  pray,  and  shall  not  be  aiile  (to  obtain  an 
answer).  Another  construction,  equally  grammatical,  though  not  so  natural, 
confines  the  apodosis  to  ^^V  ^^^1 :  "  when  he  has  appeared,  Ac,  and  enters 
into  his  sanctuary  to  praj',  he  shall  not  be  able."  A  third  gives  to  ^3  its 
more  usual  sense  of  that ;  but  this  requires  nX"l3  and  nx?3  to  be  taken  as 
futures,  which  is  inadmissible.  Luther  and  Castalio,  on  the  other  hand, 
refer  even  T'^l''  to  the  past:  "and  has  accomplished  nothing."  Some 
regard  nX"1J  as  impersonal,  it  shall  be  seen,  or  when,  it  is  seen.  But  the  phrase 
would  then  add  nothing  to  the  sense,  and  iMilZ  is  the  technical  term  for 
the  appearance  of  the  worshipper  before  his  god.  [Vide  supra,  chap.  i.  12.) 
Lowth  reads  nX"l  [when  ]\[oab  shall  see)  on  the  authority  of  the  Targum  and 
Peshito.  At  the  same  time  he  pronounces  it  "a  very  probable  conjecture" 
of  Seeker,  that  HNIJ  is  a  various  reading  for  nx?J,  inadvertently  inserted  in 
the  text.  To  this  opinion  Gesenius  also  is  inclined,  though  he  retains  both 
words,  and  copies  the  paronomasia  by  rendering  them  man  sicht  and  sich 
miihet.     For  the  first,  Knobel  substitutes  zieht.     Ewald  has  erscheint  and 


830  ISAIAH  XVI.  [Ver.  13,  14. 

umsunst  uriiit.  Henderson  translates  ''2  thoiKih,  which  is  unnecessarj-,  but 
does  not  affect  the  sense.  Vitringa  regards  '"103  as  identical  with  ^u,mg, 
and  quotes  Diodorus's  description  of  the  vast  altars  sometimes  erected  by 
the  ancients,  the  ascent  to  which  must  of  course  have  been  laborious. 
That  the  Hebrew  word  does  not  mean  a  hill,  he  argues  from  the  fact  that 
niD3  were  sometimes  erected  in  cities  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  25,  Jer.  xxxii.  35). 
But  the  word  means  a  heujht  or  hvjh  place,  whether  natm-al  or  artificial. 
The  singular  form  may  be  regarded  as  collective,  but  need  not  be  translated 
in  the  plural.  The  icearuicss  hero  spoken  of  is  understood  by  some  as 
referring  to  the  complicated  and  laborious  ritual  of  the  heathen  worship ; 
by  others,  simply  to  the  multitude  of  offerings;  by  others,  still  more  simply, 
to  the  multitude  of  prayers  put  up  in  vain.  J.  D.  Michaelis  reads  viy 
siuictuar)/,  changes  ^<?  to  1?,  and  takes  ?21^  in  the  sense  of  the  correspond- 
ing root  in  Arabic:  "  then  shall  he  come  to  my  sanctuary,  and  in  it  shall 
trust."  ^i'lpD  is  also  explained  to  mean  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  by 
Ephraem  Syrus,  Clericus,  Schmidius  and  Gill,  the  last  of  whom  asserts, 
that  "  the  house  or  temple  of  an  idol  is  never  called  a  sanctuary."  But 
see  Ezek.  xxviii.  18,  Amos  vii.  9,  13.  The  same  explanation  of  ti'npO  is 
erroneously  ascribed  by  Barnes  to  Kimchi.  Solomon  Ben  Melech  makes  it 
mean  the  palace  of  the  king,  and  Jarchi  applies  HtDan  7V  nX?J  to  the  weari- 
ness of  the  defenders  with  fighting  from  the  towers.  According  to  the  time 
interpretation  of  the  verse,  the  last  clause  may  either  represent  the  wor- 
shipper as  passing  from  the  open  high  place  to  the  shrine  or  temple  where 
his  god  resided,  in  continuation  of  the  same  religious  service,  or  it  may  re- 
pi'esent  him  as  abandoning  the  ordinary  altars,  and  resorting  to  some  noted 
temple,  or  to  the  shrine  of  some  chief  idol,  such  as  Chemosh  (1  Kings  xi. 
17).  The  Septuagint  refers  ^^V  to  the  idol  (he  shall  not  be  able  to  deliver 
him),  but  as  this  had  not  been  previously  mentioned,  the  construction  is  a 
harsh  one.  As  applied  to  Lloab,  it  does  not  mean  that  he  should  not  be 
able  to  reach  or  to  enter  the  sanctuary  on  account  of  his  exhaustion,  but 
that  he  should  not  be  able  to  obtain  what  he  desired,  or  indeed  to  effect 
anything  whatever  by  his  prayers.  Ewald  imagines  the  apodosis  of  the 
sentence  to  have  been  lost  out  of  the  text,  but  thinks  it  may  have  been  pre- 
served by  Jeremiah  in  the  words,  Moab  shall  he  ashamed  of  Chemosh  (Jer. 
xlviii.  13). 

13.  This  is  the  word  which  Jehovah  sjmJcc  concerning  3Ioah  of  old.  The 
reference  is  not  to  what  follows  but  to  what  precedes.  TXD  does  not  mean 
since  the  date  of  the  foregoing  prophecy,  or  since  another  point  of  time  not 
specified — such  as  the  time  of  Balak,  or  of  Moab's  subjection  to  Israel,  or 
of  its  revolt — but  more  indefinitely,  heretofore  of  old.  It  may  be  applied 
either  to  a  remote  or  a  recent  period,  and  is  frequently  used  by  Isaiah  else- 
where, in  reference  to  earlier  predictions.  The  same  contrast  between  tND 
and  nny  occurs  in  2  Sam.  xv.  34.  13T  does  not  mean  a  sentence  but  a 
prophecy.  Some  give  to  ?X  its  usual  sense  to,  and  suppose  it  to  point  out 
Moab  as  the  object  of  address.  Others  give  it  the  strong  sense  of  against. 
But  it  is  best  to  understand  it  as  indicating  merely  the  theme  or  subject  of 
the  declaration. 

14.  And  now  Jehovah  speaks  (or  has  spoken),  saying,  In  three  years,  like 
the  years  of  an  hireling,  the  glory  of  Moab  shall  be  disgraced,  tvith  all  the  great 
throng,  and  the  remnant  shall  be  small  and  few  not  much.  By  the  years  of 
an  hureling  most  writers  understand  years  computed  strictly  and  exactly, 
■with  or  without  allusion  to  the  eager  expectation  with  which  hirelings  await 


Yer.  14.j  ISAIAH  XVII.  331 

their  time,  and  their  joy  at  its  arrival,  or  to  the  hardships  of  the  time  ot 
servitude.  J.  D.  MichaeUs  supposes  a  specific  reference  to  the  lunar  years 
of  the  ancient  calendar,  as  being  shorter  than  the  solar  years.  Knobel 
supposes  three  years  to  be  put  for  a  small  number,  but  this  indefinite 
interpretation  seems  to  be  precluded  by  the  reference  to  the  years  of  a 
hireling.  The  glory  of  Moab  is  neither  its  wealth,  its  army,  its  people,  nor 
its  nobiUty  exclusively,  but  all  in  which  the  nation  gloried.  The  3  before 
73  does  not  mean  consisting  in,  or  notwithstanding,  but  %mth,  including. 
|"IDn  denotes  not  merely  a  gi-eat  number,  but  the  tumult  and  confusion  of  a 
crowd.  1''33  XI'?  is  by  some  understood  to  mean  not  strong.  It  was  pos- 
sibly intended  to  include  the  ideas  of  diminished  numbers  and  diminished 
strength. — As  the  date  of  this  prediction  is  not  given,  the  time  of  its  fulfil- 
ment is  of  course  uncei^tain.  Some  suppose  it  to  have  been  executed  by 
Tirhakah,  king  of  Ethiopia  (2  Kings  xix.  9) ;  others  by  Shalmaneser;  others 
by  Sennacherib;  others  by  Esarhaddon ;  others  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  These 
last  of  coui'se  suppose  that  the  verses  are  of  later  date  than  the  time  of 
Isaiah.  Henderson  regards  them  as  the  work  of  an  inspired  -^Titer  in  the 
following  century.  That  the  final  downfall  of  Moab  was  to  be  effected  by 
the  Babylonians,  seems  clear  from  the  repetition  of  Isaiah's  threatenings  by 
Jeremiah  (chap,  xlviii.).  Some  indeed  suppose  that  an  earlier  invasion  by 
Ass^Tia  is  here  foretold,  as  a  pledge  of  the  Babj'lonian  conquest  which  had 
been  predicted  in  the  foregoing  chapter.  But  this  supposition  of  a  twofold 
catastrophe  appears  to  be  too  artificial  and  complex.  Barnes  understands 
the  thirteenth  verse  to  mean  that  such  had  been  the  tenor  of  the  prophecies 
against  Moab  from  the  earliest  times,  which  were  now  to  receive  their  final 
accomplishment.  A  majority  of  writers  look  upon  vers.  13,  14,  as  a  post- 
script or  appendix  by  Isaiah  to  an  earlier  prediction  of  his  own  or  of  some 
older  prophet,  whom  Hitzig  imagines  to  be  Jonah,  on  the  strength  of 
2  Kings  xiv.  25.  The  only  safe  conclusion  is  that  these  two  verses  were 
added  by  divine  command  in  the  days  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  or  that  if  written 
b}''  Isaiah  they  were  verified  in  some  of  the  Assyrian  expeditions  which 
were  frequent  at  that  period,  although  the  conquest  of  Moab  is  not  explicitly 
recorded  in  the  histoi'y. 


CHAPTEE  XVII. 

This  chapter  is  chiefly  occupied  with  a  prophecy  of  desolation  to  the 
kingdoms  of  SjTia  and  Ephraim,  vers.  1-11.  It  closes  with  a  more  general 
threatening  against  the  enemies  of  Judah,  vers.  12-14.  Most  of  the  modem 
writers  regard  ver.  12  as  the  beginning  of  a  new  and  distinct  prophecy, 
extending  through  the  eighteenth  chapter,  and  relating  to  the  destruction 
of  Sennacherib's  host.  Some  of  the  older  writers  explain  vers.  12-14  as  a 
direct  continuation  of  the  prophecy  concerning  Syria  and  Israel.  Others 
treat  it  as  a  fragment,  or  an  independent  prophecy,  connected  neither  with 
the  seventeenth  nor  eighteenth  chapter.  In  favour  of  connecting  it  with 
chap.  x^di.  is  the  absence  of  any  distinctive  title  or  intimation  of  a  change  of 
subject.  In  favour  of  connecting  it  with  chap,  xviii.,  is  the  similarity  of  form 
in  the  beginning  of  xvii.  12  and  xviii.  1.  The  stiU  stronger  resemblance 
between  x\'ii.  11  and  xviii.  15,  seems  to  shew  that  the  whole  is  a  continuous 
composition.  This  is,  at  least,  a  safer  conclusion,  and  one  more  favom'able 
to  con-ect  interpretation,  than  the  extreme  of  mutilation  and  dinsion,  to 
which  the  modern  criticism  uniformly  tends.     Less  exegetical  error  is  likely 


332  ISAIAH  XVII.  ,Yer.  1. 

to  arise  from  combining  prophecies  really  distinct  than  from  separating  the 
parts  of  one  and  the  same  prophecy.  The  most  satisfactory  view  of  the 
■whole  passage  is,  that  it  was  meant  to  be  a  prophetic  picture  of  the  doom 
which  awaited  the  enemies  of  Jndah,  and  that  while  many  of  its  expres- 
sions admit  of  a  general  application,  some  traits  in  the  dcsci-iption  are 
derived  from  particular  invasions  and  attacks.  Thus  Syria  and  Epliraim 
are  expressly  mentioned  in  the  iirst  part,  while  the  terms  of  the  last  three 
verses  are  more  appropriate  to  the  slaughter  of  the  Assyrian  host ;  but  as 
this  is  not  explicitly  referred  to,  there,  is  no  need  of  regarding  it  as  the 
exclusive  subject  even  of  that  passage.  The  eighteenth  chapter  may  then 
be  treated  as  a  part  of  the  same  context.  In  the  first  part  of  chap.  xvii.  the 
Prophet  represents  the  kingdoms  of  Syria  and  Ephraim  as  sharing  the  same 
fate,  both  being  brought  to  desolation,  vers.  1-3.  He  then  describes  the 
desolation  of  Ephraim  especially,  by  the  figures  of  a  harvest  and  a  gathering 
of  olives,  in  which  little  is  left  to  be  afterwards  gleaned,  vers.  4-6.  As 
the  effect  of  these  judgments,  he  describes  the  people  as  renouncing  their 
idols  and  returning  to  Jehovah,  vers.  7,  8.  He  then  resumes  his  description 
of  the  threatened  desolation,  and  ascribes  it  to  the  general  oblivion  of  God, 
and  cultivation  of  strange  doctrines  and  practices,  vers.  9-11.  This  last 
might  be  regarded  as  a  simple  repetition  of  the  threateuings  in  vers.  4-0, 
interrupted  by  the  promise  in  vers.  7,  8.  But  as  the  desolation  of  Syria  and 
Israel  was  actually  effected  by  successive  strokes  or  stages,  as  Shalmaneser 
accomplished  what  Tiglath-pileser  had  begun,  and  as  history  records  a  par- 
tial conversion  of  the  Israelites  from  their  apostasy  between  these  two 
attacks,  it  is  altogether  natural  to  understand  the  prophecy  as  exhibiting  this 
sequence  of  events.  In  the  close  of  the  chapter,  the  Prophet  first  describes 
a  gathering  of  nations,  and  then  their  dispersion  by  divine  rebuke,  which 
he  declares  to  be  the  doom  of  ail  who  attack  or  oppress  God's  people,  vers. 
12-14. 

1.  The  burden  of  Damascus.  Behold,  Ihanascns  is  innovcd  from  {lieing) 
a  city,  and  is  a  heap,  a  rain.  On  the  meaning  of  burden,  vide  supra, 
chap.  xiii.  1.  The  modern  Germans  suppose  the  first  words  to  have  been 
added  by  a  copyist  or  compiler,  on  the  ground  that  they  are  appropriate,  as 
a  title,  only  to  the  first  few  verses.  Some  have  defended  the  correctness  of 
the  title,  on  the  ground  that  Ephraim  is  only  mentioned  as  an  ally  of  Syria, 
or  that  Damascus  is  again  included  in  the  threateuings  of  vt'rs.  9-11.  The 
true  answer  seems  to  be,  that  the  objection  confounds  these  prophetic  inscrip- 
tions with  the  titles  or  headings  of  modern  composition.  The  latter  are 
comprehensive  summaries,  entirel}'  distinct  from  the  text ;  the  former  are  an 
original  part  of  it.  The  one  before  us  is  equivalent  to  saying,  "  I  have  a 
threatening  to  announce  against  Damascus."  Such  an  expression  would  not 
imply  that  no  other  subject  was  to  be  introduced,  nor  would  the  introduction 
of  another  subject  justify  tho  rejection  of  the  prefatory  formula  as  incorrect 
and  therefore  spurious.  Not  a  little  of  the  slashing  criticism  now  in  vogue 
rests  upon  a  forced  application  of  modern  or  occidental  usages  to  ancient  and 
oriental  writings.  The  idiomatic  phrase  removed  from  a  eilij  is  not  to  be 
explained  as  an  ellipsis  for  removed  from  (the  number  of)  cities,  in  which 
case  the  plural  form  would  be  essential.  It  rather  means  removed  front  (the 
state  or  condition  of)  a  city,  or,  as  Jarchi  completes  the  construction, /Vo/u 
(being)  a  city.  Compare  chap.  vii.  8,  and  1  Sam.  xv.  20.  Ivnobel  need- 
lessly and  harshly  explains  Damascus  as  the  name  of  the  people,  who  are 
then  described  as  being  literally  removed  from  the  city.  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
still  more  extravagantly,  makes  "ID^O  a  noun  and  "I'V^  a  particle.     Behold, 


Yer.  2.]  ISAIAH  XV 11.  333 

• 
Damascus  !  punishment  uiualces  !  ''V^  occurs  only  here,  and  seems  to 
have  been  used  instead  of  the  cognate  ^J?  on  account  of  its  resemblance  to 
T'yo.  The  last  two  words  are  propabl}'  in  apposition  rather  than  in  regi- 
men (acervus  ruinaj)  or  in  concord  as  an  adjective  and  substantive  (a  ruinous 
heap).  The  radical  idea  in  the  first  is  that  of  overturninf/,  in  the  other  that 
oifallinri.  Some  regard  this  and  the  next  two  verses  as  a  description  of 
the  past,  and  infer  that  the  prophecy  is  subsequent  in  date  to  the  conquest 
of  Damascus  and  Syria.  But  as  the  form  of  expression  leaves  this  undeter- 
mined, it  is  better  to  regard  the  whole  as  a  prediction.  Damascus  is  still 
the  most  flourishing  city  in  Western  Asia.  It  is  also  one  of  the  most 
ancient.  It  is  here  mentioned  as  the  capital  of  a  kingdom,  called  Syria  of 
Damascus  to  distinguish  it  from  other  Syrian  principalities,  and  founded  in 
the  reign  of  David  by  Rezon  (1  Kings  xi.  23,  24).  It  was  commonly  at 
war  with  Israel,  particularly  during  the  reign  of  Benhadad  and  Haznel,  so 
that  a  three  years'  peace  is  recorded  as  along  one  (1  Kings  xxii.  1).  Under 
Rezin,  its  last  king,  S^Tia  joined  with  Ephraim  against  Judah,  during  which 
confederacy,  i.  e.  in  the  first  years  of  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  this  prophecy  was 
probably  uttered.  From  the  resemblance  of  the  names  Bezon  and  Eezin, 
Vitringa  takes  occasion  to  make  the  following  extraordinary  statement. 
"  Omnis  docet  historia  mundi  passim  accidere,  lusu  quodam  singulari  Provi- 
dentia3  Divinte,  ut  regna  et  imperia  iisdem  vel  similibus  nominibus  oriantur 
et  occidant."  Damascus  appears  to  have  experienced  more  vicissitudes 
than  any  other  ancient  city  except  Jerusalem.  After  the  desolation  here 
predicted  it  was  again  rebuilt,  and  again  destroyed  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
notwithstanding  which  it  reappears  in  the  Old  Testament  as  a  flourishing 
city  and  a  seat  of  government.  In  the  verse  before  us,  the  reference  may 
be  chiefly  to  its  downfall  as  a  royal  residence. 

2.  Forsaken  (are)  the  cities  of  Aroer ;  for  flochs  shall  they  he,  and 
they  shall  lie  down,  and  there  shall  he  no  one  making  (them)  afraid. 
There  are  three  Aroers  distinctly  mentioned  in  the  Bible  :  one  in  the  terri- 
tory of  Judah  (1  Sam.  xxx.  28),  one  at  the  southern  extremity  of  the  land 
of  Israel  east  of  Jordan  (Jos.  xii.  2,  xiii.  6),  a  third  farther  north  and 
near  to  Kabbah  (Jos.  xiii.  25,  Num.  xxxii.  24).  Some  suppose  a  fourth 
in  Syria,  in  order  to  explain  the  text  before  us,  while  others  understand  it 
as  the  name  of  a  province  in  that  kingdom.  Vitringa  thinks  it  either 
means  the  plain  or  valley  of  Damascus  or  Damascus  itself,  so  called  because 
divided  and  surrounded  by  the  Chrysorroas,  as  one  of  the  Aroers  was  by  the 
Arnon  (Josh.  xii.  2).  It  is  now  commonly  agreed  that  the  place  meant 
the  northern  Aroer  east  of  Jordan,  and  that  its  cities  are  the  towns  around 
it  and  perhaps  dependent  on  it.  An  analogous  expression  is  the  cities  of 
Heshbon  (Josh.  xiii.  17).  luiobel,  however,  understands  the  phrase  to  mean 
the  cities  Aroer,  i.  e.  both  the  towns  of  that  name,  put  for  all  the  towns  east 
of  Jordan,  on  account  of  the  resemblance  of  the  name  to  ^"IJ?,  and  perhaps 
with  allusion  to  the  sense  of  nakedness,  belonging  to  the  root.  Thus  under- 
stood, this  verse  predicts  the  desolation  of  Ephraim  and  not  of  Syria.  It 
is  possible,  however,  as  well  on  account  of  their  contiguity,  as  of  the  league 
between  them,  that  they  are  here,  as  in  chap.  vii.  16,  confounded  or  in- 
tentionally merged  in  one.  At  all  times,  it  is  probable,  the  boundaries  be- 
tween these  adjacent  states  were  fluctuating  and  uncertain.  This  accounts 
for  the  fact  that  the  same  place  is  spoken  of  at  different  times  as  belonging 
to  Israel,  to  Moab,  to  Ammon,  or  to  Syria.  Forsaken  probably  means 
emptied  of  their  people  and  left  desolate.  There  is  then  a  specific  reference 
to  deportation  and  exile. 


3»4  ISAIAH  XV n.  [Ver.  3-5. 

3.  Then  shall  cease  defence  from  Ephrahn  and  royidty  from  Damascus 
and  the  rest  of  Syria.  Like  the  glory  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  they  be, 
saith  Jehovah  of  hosts.  1V3?0  may  be  taken  in  its  usual  specific  sense  of 
a  fortified  place,  meaning  either  Damascus  (as  a  protection  of  the  ten  tribes) 
or  Samaria  (Micah  i.  5).  Some  disregard  the  Masoretic  interpunction,  and 
connect  the  rest  of  Syria  with  the  verb  in  the  last  clause  :  the  rest  of  Syria 
shall  be,  &c.  *it<^*  ma}'  either  mean  the  whole  of  SjTia  besides  Damascus, 
or  the  remnant  left  by  the  Assj-rian  invaders.  The  latter  agrees  best  with 
the  terms  of  the  comparison.  What  was  left  of  S}Tia  should  resemble  what 
was  left  of  the  glory  of  Israel.  Houbigant  and  Lowth  gratuitoush-  read  riNtJ* 
2oride,  in  order  to  obtain  a  parallel  expression  to  "1133.  Th.Q  glory  of  Israel 
is  not  Samaria,  nor  does  it  denote  wealth  or  population  exclusively,  but  all 
that  constitutes  the  greatness  of  a  people.  {Vide  supra,  chap.  v.  14). 
Jerome  and  others  regard  glory  as  an  ironical  and  sarcastic  expression ; 
but  it  seems  to  mean  simply  what  is  left  of  their  former  glory. 

4.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass)  in  that  day,  the  glory  of  Jacob  shall 
be  brought  low  (or  made  Avcak),  and  the  fatness  of  his  flesh  shall  be  made 
lean.  This  is  not  a  mere  transition  from  Syria  to  Ephraim,  nor  a  mere 
extension  of  the  previous  threatenings  to  the  latter,  but  an  explanation  of 
the  comparison  in  the  verse  preceding.  The  remnant  of  Ephraim  was  to 
be  like  the  gloiy  of  Israel;  but  how  was  that  ?  This  verse  contains  the 
answer.  Glory,  as  before,  includes  all  that  constitutes  the  strength  of  a 
people,  and  is  here  contrasted  with  a  state  of  weakness.  The  same  idea  is 
expressed  in  the  last  clause  by  the  figure  of  emaciation.  The  image,  as 
Gill  says,  is  that  of  "  a  man  in  a  consumption,  that  is  become  a  mere  skele- 
ton, and  reduced  to  skin  and  bones."  Jacob  does  not  mean  Judah  (Eich- 
horn)  but  the  ten  tribes.  Hendewerk  refers  the  sufiix  in  the  last  clause  to 
"1133,  and  infers  that  the  latter  must  denote  a  human  subject.  Junius  re- 
gards the  sentence  as  unfinished  :  "in  the  day  when  the  glory,  &c.,  then 
shall  it  be  (ver.  5),  &c."  Cocceius  makes  this  the  beginning  of  a  promise 
of  deliverance  to  Judah  :  "in  that  day,  it  is  true  (quidem),  the  glory  of 
Jacob  shall  be  reduced,"  &c.,  but  (ver.  5)  &c.  Both  these  constructions 
supply  something  not  expressed,  and  gratuitously  suppose  a  sentence  of  un- 
usual length. 

5.  And  it  shall  be  like  the  gathering  (or  as  one  gathers)  the  harvest,  the 
standing  com,  and  his  arm  reaps  the  ears.  And  it  shall  be  like  one  collect- 
ing ears  in  the  valley  of  Rephaim.  The  first  verb  is  not  to  be  rendered  he 
shall  be  {i.  e.  Israel,  or  the  king  of  Assyria),  but  to  be  construed  imperson- 
ally, it  shall  be  or  come  to  pass.  Some  suppose  the  first  clause  to  describe 
the  act  of  reaping,  and  the  second  that  of  gleaning.  Others  regard  both  as 
descriptive  of  the  same  act,  a  particular  place  being  mentioned  in  the  last 
clause  to  give  life  to  the  description.  The  valley  of  Kephaim  or  the  Giants 
extends  from  Jerusalem  to  the  south-west  in  the  direction  of  Bethlehem. 
There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  here  men- 
tioned. Aben  Ezra  and  Ewald  suppose  it  to  be  named  as  a  barren  spot, 
producing  scanty  hai'vests,  and  gleanings  in  proportion.  Most  wTiters,  on 
the  contrary,  assume  it  to  have  been  remarkably  fertile.  Vitringa  imagines 
at  the  same  time  an  allusion  to  the  level  surface,  as  admitting  of  a  n^ore 
complete  and  thorough  clearing  by  the  reaper  than  uneven  grounds.  If  we 
consider  the  passage  without  reference  to  imaginary  facts,  the  most  natural 
conclusion  is  that  the  valley  of  Rephaim  was  mentioned  as  a  spot  near  to 
Jerusalem,  and  well  known  to  the  people,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  a  specific 
character  to  the  general  description  or  allusion  of  the  first  clause.     There 


Yer.  6.J  ISAIJH  XVII.  335 

is  no  proof  that  it  was  remarkable  cither  for  fertility  or  barrenness.  Some 
of  the  commentators  represent  it  as  now  waste  ;  but  Robinson  speaks  of  it 
en  passant,  as  "  the  cultivated  valley  or  plain  of  Rephaim."  (Palestine,  i. 
323).  Some  refer  ^Di<  to  the  act  of  gathering  the  stalks  in  one  hand,  in 
order  to  cut  them  with  the  other  ;  but  this  is  a  needless  refinement.  The 
Hebrew  verb  probably  denotes  the  whole  act  of  reaping.  There  are  several 
different  ways  of  construing  '^''Vp.  Some  make  HDp  agree  with  it  as  a  femi- 
nine noun  {the  stand hu/  harvest),  which  is  contrary  to  usage.  Umbreit  ex- 
plains it  as  an  adverb  of  time  {in  harvest),  which  is  very  forced.  Gesenius 
adopts  Abcn  Ezra's  explanation  of  the  word  as  equivalent  in  meaning  to  "iV'p 
or  T'Vi?  ^''^.  Some  make  "i^^'P  itself  a  verbal  noun  analogous  in  form  and 
sense  to  t^vQ  T'lEJ',  &c.  Ewald  makes  the  season  of  harvest  (Erntezeit) 
the  subject  of  the  verb  ;  as  when  the  harvest-season  gathers,  Sic.  Perhaps 
the  simplest  supposition  is  that  npi?  is  in  apposition  with  "T'Vi^,  not  as  a 
mere  synonyme,  but  as  a  more  specific  term,  the  crop,  the  standing  corn. 
The  suftix  in  IVIIT  then  refers  to  the  indefinite  subject  of  the  first  clause. 
According  to  Cocceius,  the  point  of  the  comparison  is  the  care  and  skill 
with  which  the  grain  is  gathered  to  be  stored  away  ;  in  like  manner  God 
would  cause  his  people  to  be  gathered  for  their  presei'vation.  All  other 
writers  understand  the  figures  as  denoting  the  completeness  of  the  judgment 
threatened  against  Israel. 

6.  And  gleanings  shall  he  left  therein  like  the  heating  (or  shaking)  of  an 
olive  tree,  two  {or)  three  berries  in  the  top  of  a  high  hough,  four  {or)  Jive  in 
the  branches  of  the  fruit-tree,  saith  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel.  There  is  here 
an  allusion  to  the  custom  of  beating  the  unripe  olives  from  the  tree 
for  the  purpose  of  making  oil.  Those  described  as  left  may  either  be 
the  few  left  to  ripen  for  eating,  or  the  few  overlooked  by  the  gatherer  or 

beyond  his  reach.  The  common  version  of  HI  ??y  (gleaning  grapes)  is  too  re- 
stricted, and  presents  the  incongruity  of  grapes  upon  an  olive-tree.  The  transi- 
tion from  the  figure  of  a  harvest  to  that  of  an  olive-gathering  may  be  intended 
simply  to  vary  and  multiply  the  images,  or,  as  Hitzig  supposes,  to  complete 
the  illustration  which  would  otherwise  have  been  defective,  because  the 
reaper  is  followed  by  the  gleaner  who  completes  the  ingathering  at  once, 
whereas  the  olive-gatherer  leaves  some  of  course.  The  verb  "IXK'J  is  mas- 
culine and  singular,  as  in  many  other  cases  where  the  subject  follows.  The 
suffix  in  11  refers  of  course  to  Jacob  or  Israel,  /.  e.  the  ten  tribes.  Two, 
three,  four,  and  five,  are  used,  as  in  other  languages,  for  an  indefinite  small 
number  or  a  few.  All  interpreters  agree  that  the  idea  of  height  is  essen- 
tially included  in  *T'OX.  Aben  Ezra  connects  it  with  the  Arabic  ^^ 
(Emir)  from  which,  says  Gill,  "  the  word  amiral  or  admiral  comes."  Most 
writers  give  the  Hebrew  the  specific  sense  of  high  or  highest  branch  ; 
Henderson  that  of  lofty  tree ;  Gesenius  the  more  general  sense  of  top  or 
summit,  in  order  to  accommodate  his  explanation  of  the  same  word  in 
ver.  9.  The  combination  head  of  the  top  would  then  be  emphatic,  though 
unusual  and  scarcely  natural.  The  suffix  in  iT'Dyo  is  treated  by  Gesenius 
as  superfluous,  and  by  others  as  belonging  proleptically  to  the  next  word. 
Some  of  the  older  wiiters  make  H^D  agree  with  it  {in  its  fruitful  branches), 
but  the  words  difter  both  in  gender  and  number.  The  latest  ^vi'iters  seem 
to  be  agreed  that  the  expression  literally  means  in  the  branches  of  it,  the 
fruit-tree,  the  it  being  unnecessary  in  any  other  idiom.  The  irregularity  is 
wholly  but  arbitrarily  removed  by  Hitzig's  division  of  the  words  i^'''^^^  '•2^0. 
This  verse  is  regarded  by  Cocceius  as  a  promise  to  the  people,  by  others 


336  ISAIAH  X I II.  [Ver.  7,  8. 

as  a  promise  to  the  pious  Jews  and  especially  to  Hezckiah,  but  by  most 
inteq)reters  as  describing  the  extent  to  which  the  threatened  judgment 
would  be  carried.  The  gleanings,  then,  are  not  the  pious  remnant,  but 
the  ignoble  refuse  who  survived  the  deportation  of  the  ten  tribes  by  the 
Assj'rians. 

7.  In  that  Jay  man  sJiall  tinn  to  his  iilal:cr,  and  his  eyes  to  the  Ilohj  One 
of  Israel  shall  look.  Grotius  and  Junius  make  this  an  advice  or  exhorta- 
tion— let  hivi  look — but  there  is  no  gi'ound  for  departing  from  the  strict 
sense  of  the  words  as  a  prediction.  ?y  ^V^*  occurs  again  below  (chap. 
xxxi.  1)  in  the  sense  of  looking  to  any  one  for  help,  which  implies  trust  or 
confidence.  The  Septuagint  accordingly  has  here  ceto/^w;.  Jarchi  ex- 
plains the  phrase  as  equivalent  to  ?N  nJD\  The  article  before  C^*  gives 
it  a  generic,  not  a  specific,  sense.  It  does  not  therefore  mean  every  man 
or  the  people  in  general  (Barnes),  but  nian  indefinitely.  It  is  commonly 
agreed  that  Maker  is  here  used  in  a  pregnant  sense  to  describe  God,  not 
merely  as  the  natural  creator  of  mankind,  but  as  the  maker  of  Israel,  the 
author  of  their  privileges,  and  their  covenant  God.  (Compare  Deut. 
xxxii.  G.)  The  same  idea  is  expressed  by  the  parallel  phrase.  Holy  One  of 
Israel,  for  the  import  of  which  vide  supra,  chap.  i.  4.  Some  refer  this  verse 
partially  or  wholly  to  the  times  of  the  New  Testament,  others  more  cor- 
rectly to  the  efiect  of  the  preceding  judgments  on  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel. 
It  is  matter  of  history,  that  after  the  Assyrian  conquest  and  the  general 
deportation  of  the  people,  many  accepted  Hezekiah's  invitation  and  returned 
to  the  worship  of  Jehovah  at  Jerusalem  (2  Chron.  xxx.  11);  and  this  refor- 
mation is  alluded  to  as  still  continued  in  the  times  of  Josiah  (2  Chron. 
xxxiv.  9).  At  the  same  time  the  words  may  be  intended  to  suggest,  that 
a  similar  efl'ect  might  be  expected  to  result  from  similar  causes  in  later 
times. 

8.  And  he  shall  not  turn  (or  looli)  to  the  altars,  the  twrk  of  his  ou-n  hands, 
and  that  uhich  his  own  jinyers  have  made  shall  he  not  reyard,  and  the  yroves 
(or  imayes  of  Ashtoreth)  and  the  pillars  (or  images)  of  the  sun.  The  positive 
declaration  of  the  preceding  verse  is  negatively  expressed  in  this,  with  a  par- 
ticular mention  of  the  objects  which  had  usurped  the  place  of  God.  Ivimchi's 
Bupei-ficial  observation,  that  even  God's  altar  was  the  work  of  men's  hands, 
and  that  this  phrase  must  therefore  denote  idols,  is  adopted  by  Clericus  (aras 
erectas  operi  manuum)  and  by  Lowth,  who  observes  that  "  all  the  ancient 
versions  and  most  of  the  modern  have  mistaken  it,"  and  then  goes  on  to 
say  that  ntJ'yD  is  not  in  apposition  with  rnn2T?Dn,  but  governed  by  it ;  a 
construction  precluded  by  the  definite  article  before  the  latter  word.  The 
true  explanation  is  that  given  by  Calvin,  and  adopted  by  most  later  writers, 
viz.  that  idol-altars  are  described  as  the  work  of  men's  hands,  because 
erected  by  their  sole  authority,  whereas  the  altar  at  Jerusalem  was,  in  the 
highest  sense,  the  work  of  God  himself.  Yitringa  arbitrarily  explains  the 
next  clause  {irhat  their  fiuyers  have  made)  as  synonymous  neither  with  what 
goes  before  nor  with  what  follows,  but  as  denoting  the  household  yods  of 
the  idolaters.  The  old  writers  take  CX'N  always  in  the  sense  of  yroves, 
i.  e.  such  as  were  used  for  idol-worship.  It  has  been  shewn,  however,  by 
Selden,  Spencer,  Gesenius,  and  others,  that  in  some  places  this  sense  is 
inadmissible,  as  when  the  mii'N  is  said  to  have  stood  upon  an  altar,  or 
under  a  tree,  or  to  have  been  brought  out  of  a  temple  (1  Kings  xiv.  23, 
2  Chron.  xxxiv.  4).  The  modem  wTitcrs,  therefore,  understand  it  as 
denoting  the  goddess  of  fortune  or  happiness  (from  ll^'^^,  to  be  prosperous), 
otherwise  called  Ashtaroth,  the  Phenician  Venus,  extensively  worshipped  in 


Ver.  9,  10.]  ISAIAH  XVII.  337 

conjunction  mth  Baal.  But  according  to  Movers,  the  Hebrew  word  denotes 
a  straight  or  upright  pillar.  Ewald  adheres  to  the  old  interpretation 
(Gotzenhainer).  CDJOPI  is  a  derivative  of  ""lOn,  which  properly  means 
solar  heat,  but  is  poetically  used  to  denote  the  sun  itself.  This  obvious 
etymology,  and  the  modern  discovery  of  Punic  cippi  inscribed  to  pn  "PV^, 
Baal  the  Siin  (or  Solar),  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  word  before 
us  signifies  images  of  Baal,  worshipped  as  the  representative  of  the  sun. 
From  the  same  etymology,  Montanus  derives  the  meaning,  loca  aprica, 
and  Junius  that  of  statuas  suhdiales.  The  explanation  of  the  word,  as 
meaning  suns  or  solar  images,  is  as  old  as  Kimchi. 

9.  In  that  day  shall  his  fortified  cities  he  like  what  is  left  in  the  thicJcet 
and  the  lofty  branch,  (namely  the  cities)  which  they  leave  (as  they  retire) 
from  before  the  children  of  Israel,  and  (the   land)  shall  be  a  ivaste.     It 
is  universally  agreed   that   the   desolation  of  the  ten  tribes  is   here  de- 
scribed by  a  comparison,  but  ^as  to  the  precise  form  and  meaning  of  the 
sentence  there  is  great  diversity  of  judgment.     Some  suppose  the  strongest 
towns  to  be  here  represented  as  no  better  defended  than  an  open  forest. 
Others  on  the  contrary  understand  the   strong  towns   alone  to  be  left,  the 
others  being  utterly  destroyed.    nniTJ?  is  variously  understood  to  mean  what 
is  left  of  and   n-hat   is  left  in.      Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  make  Horesh  and 
Amir  proper  names,  the  former  identical  with  Harosheth-fjoim.  (Judges  iv. 
2,    13,    16),   the  latter  w^ith  the  ' A/jb/iPvda  of  Josephus  or  the  ' Avigd  of 
Eusebius.     Symmachus,  Aquila,  and  Theodotion  all  retained  the  word  1''0K, 
and  Theodotion  Ei'in  also.     The  Septuagint  renders  the  words  o/ '  Af/,oi^am 
xa!  o'l  EvaToi.     For  the  first  the  Peshito  has  Hcres.     The  last  two  versions 
Vitringa  connects  by  a  reference  to  the  statement  (Judges  i.  35)  that  the 
Amorites  irould  dwell  in  Mount  Hcres.    Ewald  explains  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion on  the  ground  that  the  old  Canaanites  divided  themselves  into  the  two 
great  classes  of  Amorites  (mountaineers),   and  Hittites  (lowlanders)  or 
Hi\dtes  (villagers).    Jerome  translates  the  words  aratra  et  serjetes.    Capellus 
also  has  arationis.     Most  \vriters  give  1''^^<  the  sense  it  has  in  ver.  6,  and 
Ci^in  that  of  a  thick  forest,  or  more  specifically  its  underwood  or  thickets. 
Here  as  before,  Henderson  understands  by  I^ON  a  high  tree,  and  Gesenius 
the  summit  of  a  hill.     From  the  combination  of  these  various  verbal  ex- 
planations have  arisen  two  principal  interpretations  of  the  whole  verse,  or 
at  least  of  the  comparison  which  it  contains.     The  first  supposes  the  for- 
saken cities  of  Ephraim  to  be  here  compared  with  those  which  the  Canaan- 
ites forsook  when  they  fled  before  the  Israelites  under  Joshua,  or  with  the 
forests  which  the  Israehtes  left  unoccupied  after  the  conquest  of  the  country. 
The  same  essential  meaning  is  retained  by  others  who  suppose  the  Prophet 
to  allude  to  the  overthrow  of  Sisera  by  Deborah  and  Barak.     The  other 
interpretation  supposes  no  historical  allusion,  but  a  comparison  of  the  ap- 
proaching desolation  with  the  neglected  branches  of  a  tree  or  forest  that  is 
felled,  or  a  resumption  of  the  figure  of  the  olive  tree  in  ver.  6.     This  last 
is  strongly  recommended  by  its  great  simplicity,  by  its  superseding  all  gra- 
tuitous assumptions  beyond  what  is  expressed,  and  by  its  taking  ^^H  in 
the  same  sense  which  it  has  above.     Another  disputed  point  is  the  construc- 
tion of  "l^^<  which  some  refer  to  the  immediate  antecedent,  others  less 
simply  but  more  correctly  to  ItiyJO  ny. 

10.  Because  thou  hast  forgotten  the  God  of  thy  salvation,  and  the  rock  of 
thy  slrenr/th  hast  not  remembered,  therefore  thou  wilt  plant  plants  of  pleasant- 
ness (or  pleasant  plantations),  and  tcith  a  strange  slip  set  it.  Some  render  ''3 
at  the  beginning/or,  and  understand  the  first  clause  as  giving  a  reason  for 

VOL.  I.  Y 


338  ISAIAH  XVII.  [Yer.  10. 

•what  goes  before ;  but  the  emphatic  P  ^V  in  the  second  clause  seems  to 
require  that  ^3  should  have  the  meaning  of  because,  and  introduce  the  reason 
for  what  follows.     The  sense,  then,  is  not  merely  tliat  because  thej'  forgot 
God  they  were  desolate,  but  that  because  they  forgot  God  they  fell  into 
idolatiy,  and  on  that  account  were  given  up  to  desolation.     Some  regard 
the  second  clause  of  this  verse  and  the  whole  of  the  next  as  a  description 
of  their  punishment.     Because  tbey  forgot  God,  tbey  should  sow  and  plant, 
but  only  for  others  ;  the  fruit  should  be  gathered  not  by  themselves,  but 
by  their  enemies  [Ijctrharus  has  set/eles  et  ciilta  voralin  hahthit).     Others 
suppose  the  description  of  the  sin  to  be  continued  through  this  verse  and 
the  first  clause  of  the  next.     Because  they  forgot  God,  they  planted  to 
please  themselves,  and  introduced  strange  plants  into  their  vineyard.     On 
the  latter  hypothesis,  the  planting  is  a  metaphor  for  the  culture  and  propa- 
gation of  corrupt  opinions  and  practices,  especially  idolatry  and  illicit  inter- 
course with  heathen  nations.     According  to  the  other  view,  the  planting  is 
to  be  literally  understood,  and  the  evil  described  is  the  literal  fultilment  of 
the  threatening  in  Deut.  xxviii.  39.     The  latter  sense  is  given  by  most  of 
the  early  writers.     Cocceius,  who  seems  first  to  have  proposed  the  other, 
thought  it  necessary  to  translate  ''V'OT)  as  a  preterite  (plantabas),  which  is 
ungrammatical  and  arbitrary.     The  same  general  sense  may  be  attained 
■without  departing  from  the  future  form,  by  making  the  last  clause  of  ver.  10  a 
prediction  of  what  they  would  hereafter  do,  without  excluding  the  idea  that 
tbey  had  done  so  already,  and  were  actually  doing  it.     It  is  not  even  neces- 
saiy  to  read  with  Grotius  quamvis  j)Jantaveris,  or  with  Henderson  ihou 
mayest  plant,  or  with  Umbreit  lass  mir  wachsen,  although  these  translations 
really  convey  the  true  sense  of  the  clause.     It  is  urged  as  an  objection  to 
the  older  and  more  literal  interpretation,  that  the  evil  threatened  is  too 
insignificant  for  such  a  context.     This  objection  might  be  abated  by  sup- 
posing the  fruitless  cultivation  to  be  not  strictly  literal,  but  a  figure  for 
disappointment,  or  labour  in  vain  generally.     On  the  whole,  however,  it 
seems  best  to  acquiesce  in  the  opinion  now  very  commonly  adopted,  that 
the  planting  here  described  is  the  sin  of  the  people,  not  their  punishment. 
Jerome  confounds  D^J?:'y3  with  CJttSJ,  fidelen,  i.  e.  not  disappointing  ex- 
pectation.    The  Septuagint  strangely  gives  an  opposite  meaning  {ipjTsvfia 
d-TTiOTov),  which  is  regarded  by  some  as  a  mere  blunder,  by  others  as   an 
arbitrary  change,  and  by  others  as  an  error  in  the  text.     The  older  writers 
make  the  Hebrew  word  an  adjective  agreeing  with  vines,  fruits,  or  some 
other  noun  understood.     It  is  now  commonly  explained  as  an  abstract, 
meaning  pleasantness,  and  the  whole  phrase  as  equivalent  to  pleasant  or 
favourite  plants.     A  similar  construction  occurs  in  the  last  clause,  where 
slip  or  shoot  of  a  stranger  is  equivalent  to  a  strange  slip  or  shoot.     Those 
who  think  a  literal  planting  to  be  meant,  understand  strange  to   signify 
exotic,  foreign,  and  by  implication  valuable,  costly;  but  upon  the  supposi- 
tion that   a  moral   or  spiritual   planting  is   intended,  "it  has  its  frequent 
emphatic  sense  of  alien,  from  God,  i.e.  wiclced,  or  more  specifically  idola- 
trous.    Cocceius  takes  i'ltn  as  the  third  person,  which  is  forbidden  by  the 
preceding  second  person  ''V^T\.     The  suttix  in  the  last  word  may  be  most 
naturally  referred  to  riiwi/ard,  garden,  or  a  like  word  understood.     J.  D. 
Michaelis  and  others  suppose  an  allusion  in  this  last  clause  to  the  process 
of  grafting,  with  a  view  to  the  improvement  of  the  stock.     The  foreign 
growth  introduced  is  understood  by  some  to  be  idolatry,  by  others  foreign 
alliance ;  but  these  two  things,  as  we  have  seen  befoi  e,  were  inseparably 
blended  in  the  history  and  policy  of  Israel  {vide  supra,  chap.  ii.  6-8). 


Ver.  11,  12.]  ISAIAir  XVII.  339 

11.  In  the  day  of  thy  jylantinr)  thou  icilt  hedge  it  in,  and  in  the  morning 
thou  uilt  make  thy  seed  to  blossom,  (but)  aiv  ay  flies  the  crop  in  a  day  of  grief 
and  desperate  sorrow.  The  older  writers  derive  *Jt^Jt^'^l  from  JJ^,  and  explain 
it  to  mean  cause  to  grow.  The  modern  lexicographers  assume  a  root  ^Iti^ 
equivalent  to  '^•1'Li',  to  enclose  with  a  hedge.  Either  sense  is  appropriate  as 
describing  a  part  of  the  process  of  culture.  In  the  morning  is  commonly 
explained  as  an  idiomatic  phrase  for  early,  which  some  refer  to  the  rapidity 
of  growth,  and  others  to  the  assiduity  of  the  cultivator,  neither  of  which 
senses  is  exclusive  of  the  other.  1.5  is  elsewhere  a  noun  meaning  a  heap, 
and  is  so  explained  here  by  the  older  writers  :  the  harvest  (shall  be)  a  heap, 
i.e.  a  small  or  insufficient  one.  Yitringa  derives  1^  from  "1-13,  to  lament, 
and  translates  it  coniploratio.  Others  give  it  the  sense  of  shaking,  agitation. 
Gesenius  and  the  later  waiters  make  it  the  preterite  of  "1-1  J,  to  flee  (in  form 
like  np).  n?n3  as  pointed  in  the  common  text,  is  a  noun  meaning  inherit- 
ance, possession,  and  most  of  the  older  wi-iters  understand  Tt>r\^  DV3  to 
mean  in  the  day  of  expected  possession.  The  latest  waiters  for  the  most 
part,  read  n?n3  which  is  properly  the  passive  participle  of  n?n,  but  is  used 
as  a  noun  in  the  sense  of  deadly  ivound  or  disease,  here  employed  as  a 
figure  for  extreme  distress.  Even  Jarchi  explains  it  by  the  phrase  D^'' 
mv.  The  same  idea  is  expressed  by  C'UX  3X|,  which  the  Seventy  seem 
to  have  read  t^'li.^  3X|,  like  the  father  of  a  man.  Kimchi  appears  to  assume 
an  antithesis  in  each  of  these  verses  between  the  original  and  degenerate 
state  of  Israel :  at  first  thou  didst  plant  pleasant  plants,  but  now  thou  hast 
set  strange  slips ;  at  first  thou  didst  make  it  to  flourish,  but  now  the  harvest, 
&c.  This,  though  ingenious,  is  entirely  arbitrary  and  gratuitous.  The 
usual  and  simple  construction  of  the  sentence  gives  a  perfectly  good  sense. 

12.  Hark  !  the  noise  of  many  nations !  Like  the  noise  of  the  sea 
they  make  a  noise.  And  the  rush  of  peoples  !  Like  the  rush  of  many 
waters  they  are  rushing.  The  diversity  of  judgments,  as  to  the  connection 
of  the  verses  (12-14)  with  the  context,  has  been  ah-eady  stated  in  the 
introduction.  By  difl'erent  interpreters  they  are  explained,  as  a  direct  con- 
tinuation of  the  foregoing  prophecy  (J.  D,  Michaelis) — as  a  later  addition  or 
appendix  to  it  (Hitzig) — as  a  fragment  of  a  larger  poem  (Rosenmiiller) — 
as  an  independent  prophecy  (Lowth) — as  the  begimiing  of  that  contained 
in  the  next  chapter  (Gesenius) — and  as  equally  connected  with  what  goes 
before  and  follows  (Yitringa).  That  the  passage  is  altogether  broken  and 
detached,  and  unconnected  with  what  goes  before  (Barnes),  it  is  as  easy  to 
deny  as  to  affirm.  On  the  whole,  the  safest  ground  to  assume  is  that  akeady 
stated  in  the  introduction,  viz.,  that  the  two  chapters  form  a  single  prophecy 
or  j)rophetic  picture  of  the  doom  awaiting  all  the  enemies  of  Judah,  with 
particular  allusion  to  particular  enemies  in  certain  parts,  ''in  is  variously 
explained  as  a  particle  of  cursing  (Luther),  of  pity  for  the  sufferings  of  God's 
people  (Calvin),  of  wonder  (Hitzig),  or  of  simple  invocation  (Yitringa). 
Henderson  understands  it  as  directing  attention  to  the  sound  described, 
which  the  Prophet  is  supposed  to  be  actually  hearing,  an  idea  which  Augusti 
happily  expresses  by  translating  the  word  hark  !  This  descriptive  character 
of  the  passage  allows,  and  indeed  requires,  the  verbs  to  be  translated  in  the 
present  tense.  ptDn  most  fi-equently  denotes  a  multitude ;  but  here,  being 
connected  with  the  future  and  infinitive  of  its  root  ('"lOH),  it  seems  to  have 
its  primary  sense  of  noi>^e  or  tumult.  D''^"l  may  either  denote  great  (Luther) 
or  many  (Calvin) ;  but  the  latter  is  preferred  by  most  interpreters,  and  i3 
most  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  word.  \'\'^^  is  not  simply  noise 
or  sound  (Montanus),  but  more  specifically  a  roaring  (Lowth)  or  a  rushing 


340  ISAIAH  XVII.  [Ver.  13. 

(An<,nisti).  The  sense  of  storm  (Cocceius)  is  not  sufficiently  sustained  by 
usa^'c.  The  nations  meant  are  not  Gog  and  Magog  (Castalio),  nor  Syria 
and  Israel  (Clericus),  nor  their  allies  and  abettors  (Grotius),  but  all  the 
hostile  nations  by  whom  Israel  was  scourged  (Jarchi),  with  particular 
reference  to  Assyria,  and  especially  to  the  army  of  Sennacherib.  The  ap- 
plication of  the  verse  by  most  interpreters  to  these  last  alone  is  too  exclu- 
sive; much  more  that  of  Gill  to  the  •'  hectoring,  blustering,  and  blasphem- 
ing speeches  of  Sennacherib  and  Rabshakeh."  To  the  poetical  images  of 
this  verse  a  beautiful  parallel  is  adduced  by  Clericus  from  Ovid's  Metamor- 
phoses (xv.  604) : 

Qualia  fliictus 

Aequorei  faciunt,  si  quis  procul  audiat  ipsos, 

Tale  sonat  populus. 

13.  Notions,  like  ihe  rush  of  7)1(1)17/  tiatos,  rush;  and  he  rehnkes  it,  and 
it  Jlees  f)or)i  afar,  and  is  chased  like  the  chajf  of  hills  before  a  icind,  a)id 
like  a  rollinfi  thin//  before  a7(hi)luind.  The  genuineness  of  the  first  clause 
is  questioned  by  Lowth  and  Gesenius,  because  it  is  a  repetition  of  what 
goes  before,  and  is  omitted  in  the  Peshito  and  several  manuscripts.  Hen- 
dewerk  and  Knobcl,  on  the  contrary,  pronounce  it  not  only  genuine,  but 
full  of  emphasis,  and  Henderson  describes  it  as  a  pathetic  repetition.  Thus 
the  same  expressions,  which  one  critic  thinks  unworthy  of  a  place  in  the 
text,  are  regarded  by  another  as  rhetorical  beauties,  an  instructive  illustra- 
tion of  the  fluctuating  and  uncertain  nature  of  conjectural  criticism  founded 
on  the  taste  of  individual  intei-preters.  Luther  and  Augusti  insert  7jes  (ja) 
at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  which,  though  unnecessary,  indicates  the  true 
connection.  The  verb  "ly^  is  often  used  in  reference  to  God's  control  of  the 
elements,  denoting,  as  Gataker  observes,  a  real  rather  than  a  verbal  rebuke. 
Ewald,  on  the  contrary,  supposes  the  emphasis  to  lie  in  God's  subduing 
the  elemental  strife  by  a  bare  word.  The  suffix  in  13,  and  the  verbs  D3  and 
^"i!"!},  being  all  in  the  singular  number,  are  refeiTcd  by  Hitzig  to  P^^tl',  but 
more  naturally  by  most  other  writers  to  Sennacherib,  or  his  host  considered 
as  an  individual.  Knobel  makes  the  suflix  collective,  as  in  chap.  v.  26,  and 
regards  the  singular  verbs  as  equivalent  to  plurals.  By  using  the  neuter 
pronoun  it  in  English,  and  making  the  verbs  agree  with  it  in  number,  the 
peculiar  form  of  the  original  may  be  retained  without  additional  obscurity. 
The  subjunctive  construction  given  by  Junius  (ut  fugiat)  and  some  others, 
is  a  needless  departure  from  the  idiomatic  form  of  the  original.  The 
expression  f)07n  (far  is  explained  by  Kimchi  as  meaning  that  the  fugitive, 
having  reached  a  distant  point,  would  flee  fro7n  it  still  farther.  Vitringa 
understands  it  to  mean  that  he  would  flee  while  human  enemies  were  still 
at  a  distance.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  suppose /?o/»  to  be  used,  by  a 
peculiar  Hebrew  idiom,  as  to  would  be  employed  in  other  languages.  (See 
Nordheimer,  §  1046,  iv.  1.)  Kimchi  sees  in  ^"il"!  an  allusion  to  the  de- 
stroying angel.  (Comp.  Ps.  xxxv.  5,  6.)  l*b  js  not  dust  or  straw,  but  chaft' 
or  stubble.  Mountains,  according  to  Gataker,  are  here  contrasted  with 
threshing-floors ;  but  these  were  commonly  on  hills  or  knolls,  where  the 
wind  blows  freely.  According  to  Jarchi,  yR^.  is  a  ball  of  thistle-down ; 
according  to  Gill,  "  a  round  wisp  of  straw  or  stubble."  Junius  translates 
it  rota,  Cocceius  vortex,  Lowth  (jossa)ner.  All  these  interpretations  are  too 
definite.  Calvin  explains  it,  in  accordance  with  its  etj^mology,  as  meaning 
re7n  vohtbilem,  anything  blown  round  by  the  wind.  This  is  also  not  im- 
probably the  meaning  of  the  Vulgate  version,  sicut  turbo  coiron  te)npestate. 
The  common  version,  rolling  thing,  may  therefore  be  retained.    While  there 


Ver.  14. J  ISAIAH  XVII.  'dil 

seems  to  Le  an  obvious  allusion  to  the  flight  of  Sennacherib  and  the  remnant 
of  his  host  (chap,  xxxvii.  36,  37),  the  terms  are  so  selected  as  to  admit  of  a 
wider  application  to  all  Jehovah's  enemies,  and  thus  prepare  the  way  for 
the  general  declaration  iu  the  following  verse. 

14.  At  evetiinij-tide,  and  behold  terror;  before  morning  lie  is  not.     This 
is  (or  be)  the  portion  of  our  plunderers,  and  the  lot  of  our  spoilers.     Accord- 
ing to  Piscator,  these  are  the  words  of  the  people ;  according  to  Hen- 
derson, their  shout  of  exultation  in  the  morning  of  their  deliverance.     Gill 
says  the  Prophet  and  the  people  speak  together.     There  is  no  need,  how- 
ever, of  departing  from  the  simple  supposition  that  the  Prophet  is  the 
speaker,  and  that  he  uses  the  plural  pronouns  only  to  identify  himself  with 
the  people.     On  account  of  the  1  before  njn,  some  think  it  necessary  to 
supply  a  verb  before  ny?,  (they  shall  come)  in  the  evening.     The  English 
Version,  on  the  same  gi'ound,  transfers  and  behold  to  the  beginning  of  the 
sentence.     But  nothing  is  more  common  in  the  Hebrew  idiom  than  the  use 
of  and  after  specifications  of  time.     (See  Gesenius,  §  152,  a.)     In  many 
cases  it  must  be  omitted  in  English,  or  exchanged  for  tlien;  but  in  the 
present  instance  it  may  be  retained.     Luther  renders  ?  about  (um),  Ewald 
towards  (gegen),  but  Gesenius  and  most  other  writers  at  (zu),  which  is  the 
simpler  version,  and  the  one  most  agreeable  to  usage.    Tide  is  an  old  Eng- 
lish word  for  time,  identical  in  origin  with  the  German  Zeit.     Lowth  awk- 
wardly substitutes  at  the  season  of  evening.     "^O^-^  is  not  merely  trouble,  but 
terror,  consternation.     Vitringa  renders  it  still  more  strongly  horror,  and 
Ewald   Todesschrecken.      Cocceius   has   nebula,   founded   on  an  erroneous 
etymology.     The  reference  of  -"iSJ^t?  to  iiri?5,  it  (the  terror)  is  no  more, 
is  ungrammatical,  the  latter  being  feminine.     Gesenius,  Hitzig,  and  Hen- 
derson have  they  are  no  more.     Most  writers  suppose  a  specific  allusion  to 
Sennacherib  or  his  host.    It  is  best,  at  all  events,  to  retain  the  singular  form 
of  the  original,  as  being  more  expressive  and  poetical.     The  paraphrastic 
versions,  he  shall  no  more  he  present  (J.   H.  Michaelis),  he  is  vanished 
(Ewald),  there  is  no  more  any  trace  of  him  (Augusti),  and  the  Uke,  are  all 
not  only  less  exact,  but  weaker  than  the  literal  translation,  he  is  not.    Lowth 
insei-ts  1  before  1J3*S<,  on  the  authority  of  several  manuscripts  and  three  an- 
cient versions,  thereby  restoring,  as  he  says,   "  the  true  poetical  form,"  by 
obtaining  a  more  exact  parallel  to  njni.    Umbreit  and  others  suppose  night 
and  morning  to  be  here  combined  in  the  sense  of  a  very  shoi't  time,  as  in 
Ps.  XXX.  5,  IFeepiny  may  endure  for  a  night,  but  joy  cometh   in  the  morning. 
(Compare  Ps.  xc.  6.)     Most  interpreters,  however,  suppose  an  allusion  to 
the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army  in  a  single  night.    Of  these  some,  with 
Aben  Ezra,  understand  by  'li^^?  the  terror  of  the  Jews  on  the  eve  of  that 
event,  relieved  in  the  morning  by  the  sight  of  the  dead  bodies.     Others,  with 
Jarchi,  understand  by  it  the  sudden  consternation  of  the  Assyrians  themselves 
when  attacked  by  the  destroying  angel.    Jarchi  seems,  moreover,  to  refer  this 
panic  to  the  agency  of  demons  (D^lt^').    The  allusion  to  Sennaaterib  is  denied 
by  Grotius,  Clericus,  and  Rosenmiiller,  the  first  two  supposing  Syria,  or 
S}Tia  and  Israel,  to  be  the  only  subject  of  the  prophecy.     Gesenius  and 
Knobel  arbitrarily  assert  that  the  history  of  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's 
army  is  a  -mythus  founded  on  this  prophecy.     The  only  reason  why  this 
assertion  cannot  be  refuted  is  because  it  is  a  mere  assertion.     Before  such 
licence  of  conjecture  and  invention,  neither  history  nor  prophecy  can  stand  a 
moment.     The  correct  view  of  the  verse  before  us  seems  to  be,  that  while 
the  imagery  is  purposely  suited  to  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army,  the 


842  .    ISM  AH  XVIII. 

description  is  intended  to  include  other  cases  of  deliverance  granted  to 
God's  people  by  the  sudden  and  complete  destruction  of  their  enemies. 
Calvin  supposes  this  more  general  sense  to  be  expressed  by  the  figure  of  a 
storm  at  night  which  ceases  before  morning.  "  Quemadmoduni  tempestas, 
vesperi  excitata  et  paulo  post  sedata,  mane  nulla  est  ampUus,  ideo  futurum 
ut  hostibus  dispulsis  redeat  subito  praeter  spem  laeta  serenitas."  Xot  con- 
tent with  this  comprehensive  exposition,  Cocccius,  true  to  his  peculiar  prin- 
ciples of  exegesis,  specifies  as  sulyects  of  the  prophecy  the  whole  series  of 
Assyrian  and  Babylonian  kings,  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  the  persecuting  Jews, 
Nero,  Domitian,  Ohosroes  king  of  Persia,  and  the  persecuting  kings  of 
France  and  England,  adding,  not  without  reason  after  such  a  catalogue, 
"  utile  est,  cumprimis  studiosis  theologiae,  historiam  ecclesiai  et  hostium 
ejus  non  ignorare."  The  substantive  verb  being  suppressed,  as  usual,  in  the 
last  clause  of  the  verse,  it  may  be  either  an  affirmation  of  a  general  fact,  or 
an  expression  of  desire,  as  in  the  close  of  Deborah  and  Barak's  song,  so  let 
all  thi)ie  enemies  perish,  0  Jehovah  (Judges  v.  31).  The  first  explanation 
is  in  this  case  more  obvious  and  natui'al,  and  is  accordingly  preferred  by 
most  interpreters. 


CHAPTEE  XVIII. 

The  two  great  powers  of  western  Asia,  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  were 
Assyria,  and  Egypt  or  Ethiopia,  the  last  two  being  wholly  or  partially  united 
under  Tirhakah,  whose  name  and  exploits  are  recorded  in  Egj-ptian  monu- 
ments still  extant,  and  who  is  expressly  said  in  Scripture  (2  Ivings  xix.  9) 
to  have  come  out  against  Sennacherib.  With  one  or  the  other  of  these 
great  contending  powers,  Judah  was  commonly  confederate,  and  of  course 
at  war  with  the  other.  Hezekiah  is  explicitly  reproached  b}'  Rabshakeh 
(Isa.  xxxvi.  9)  with  relying  upon  Egj'pt,  /.  e.  the  Ethiopico-Egyptian  empire. 
These  historical  facts,  together  with  the  mention  of  Cush  in  ver.  1,  and  the 
appropriateness  of  the  figures  in  vers,  4,  5,  to  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's 
army,  give  great  probability  to  the  hypothesis  now  commonly  adopted,  that 
the  Prophet  here  announces  that  event  to  Ethiopia,  as  about  to  be  eff'ected 
by  a  du'ect  interposition  of  Jehovah,  and  without  human  aid.  On  this  sup- 
position, although  not  without  its  difficulties,  the  chapter  before  us  is  much 
clearer  in  itself  and  in  its  connection  with  the  one  before  it,  than  if  we  as- 
sume with  some  interpreters,  both  Jews  and  Christians,  that  it  relates  to  the 
restoration  of  the  Jews,  or  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Egj-ptians  or  Ethiopians 
themselves,  as  the  enemies  of  Israel.  At  the  same  time,  some  of  the  expres- 
sions here  employed  admit  of  so  many  interpretations,  that  it  is  best  to  give 
the  whole  as  wide  an  application  as  the  language  will  admit,  on  the  ground 
before  suggested,  that  it  constitutes  a  part  of  a  generic  prophecy  or  picture 
of  God's  dealings  with  the  foes  of  his  people,  including  illustrations  drawn 
from  particula»  events,  such  as  the  dowTifall  of  Syria  and  Israel,  and  the 
slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army. 

The  Prophet  first  invites  the  attention  of  the  Ethiopians  and  of  the  whole 
world  to  a  great  catastrophe  as  near  at  hand,  vers.  1-3.  He  then  dcscrilies  the 
catastrophe  itself,  by  the  beautiful  figure  of  a  vine  or  vineyard  sufi'ered  to 
blossom  and  bear  fruit,  and  then,  when  almost  ready  to  be  gathered,  suddenly 
destroyed,  vers.  4-6.  In  consequence  of  this  event,  the  same  people,  who  had 
been  invoked  in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,  are  described  as  bringing  pre- 
sents to  Jehovah  at  Jerusalem,  ver.  7. 


Ver.  1,  2.]  ISAIAH  XVIII.  343 

1.  Ho!  land  of  rKStUnr/  icings,  which  art  beyond  the  rivers  of  Cush  (or 
Ethiopia)!     "'in  is  rendered  ivoe !  by  the  Septuagint,  Cocceius,  and  Paulus, 
hark!  by  Augusti,  but  by  most  other  writers,  as  a  particle  of  calling,  ho  !  or 
ha  !     ?V?^*  is  explained  by  some  as  an  intensive  or  frequentative  fonn  of  ?)?, 
a  shadow,  in  which  sense  it  is  rendered  by  the  Peshito  and  Aquila  (ffx/ci 
'Trn^vyoiv) — here  used  as  a  figure  for  protection  (Calvin) — or  in  allusion  to 
the  shadow  cast  b}'  a  double  chain  of  mountains  (Saadias,  Abulwalid, 
Grotius,  Junius,  Vitringa,   Dathe) — or  to  the   opposite   direction   of  the 
shadows  in   winter    and    summer   under   the    tropics   (Vogt,   Aurivillius, 
Eichhorn,  Knobel) — a  circumstance  particularly  mentioned  in  connection 
with  Meroe  by  Pliny  (in  Meroe  his  anno  absumi  umbras),  Lucan  (donee 
umbras  extendat  Meroe),  and  other  ancient  writers.     Ivnobel  takes  D''Q3D  in 
the  sense  of  sides  (chap.  xxx.  20,  xi.  12;  Ezek.  vii.  2),  and  supposes  the  ex- 
pression to  have  been  suggested  by  the  common  phrase  shadow  of  }cings  (Ps. 
xvii.  8,  xxxvi.  8,  Ivii.  2,  Ixiii.  8).     But  as  the  double  form  7)i?)i  in  every  other 
€ase  has  reference  to  sound,  some  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  noise  made  by 
the  locusts,  one  of  the  names  of  which  in  Hebrew  is  ?¥<¥  (Paulus,  J.  D. 
Michaelis) — some  to  the  rushing  sound  of  rivers  (Umbreit) — others  to  the  clash, 
of  arms  or  other  noises  made  b}'  armies  on  the  march,  here  called  ivin/^s  by 
a  common  figure  (Gesenius,  Rosenmliller,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  Hendewerk).    But 
Knobel  denies  that  ^^3,  absolutely  used,  can  signify  an  army.     The  plural 
Dv^v'if  is  elsewhere  used  in  the  sense  of  cymbals,  and  the  Vulgate  here  has 
terrae   cymbalo    alarum.      Bohart,   Huet,    Clericus,    and   Lowth,   suppose 
the  word  to  be  here  applied  to  the  Egyptian  sistrnm,  a  species  of  cymbal, 
consisting  of  a  rim  or  frame  of  metal,  with  metallic  rods  or  plates  passing 
through  and  across  it,  the  extremities  of  which  might  be  poetically  called 
wings.     From  the  resemblance  of  the  ancient  ships  to  cymbals,  or  of  their 
sails  to  wings,  or  from  both  together,  the  phrase  before  us  is  applied  to  ships 
by  the  Septuagint  (jTrXoiuv  VTi^vys;),  Targum,  lumchi,  and  Ewald  (0  Land 
gefliigelter   Kahne !)     The    relative    "iw'J^    is    construed    with   the    nearest 
antecedent  D''D33  by  Cocceius  and  J.  H.  Michaelis,  but  by  most   other 
wi'iters  with  the  remoter  antecedent  fli*.     7  "IHVD  is  understood  to  mean  on 
this  side  by  Vitringa,  Hitzig,  and  Hendewerk — on  that  side  or  beyond  by 
Gesenius,  Rosenmiiller,  Maurer,  Umbreit,  and  most  of  the  older  writers — 
at  the  side  or  alo)ig  by  Saadias,  Grotius,  Junius,  Lowth,  Barnes,  Ewald, 
Knobel,  and  others.      Gush  is  supposed  by  Wahl  to  mean  Chusistan  or 
Tiiran,  both  here  and  in  Gen.  ii.  13 — by  Bochart,  Ethiopia  and  the  opposite 
part  of  Arabia,  but  by  Gesenius  and  the  later  writers,  Ethiopia  alone. 
The  rivers  of  Cush  are  supposed  by  some  to  be  the  Nile  and  its  branches — 
by  others,  the  Astaboras,  Astapus,  and  Astasobas,  mentioned  by  Strabo  as 
the  rivers  of  Meroe,  which  last  name  Knobel  traces  to  the  Ethiopia  root  ''I"' 
as  he  does  the  Hebi'ew  Saba  to  the  sjaionymous  N3D,  both  implying  an 
abundant  irrigation.     The  country  thus  described  is  understood  by  Cyril, 
Jerome,  Bochart,  Vitringa,  and  Lowth,  to  be  Egypt ;  by  most  other  writers 
Ethiopia  ;  but  by  Knobel,  Saba  or  Meroe,  a  region  contiguous  to  Ethiopia, 
and  watered  by  its  rivers,  often  mentioned  with  it,  but  distinguished  fi'om  it 
(Gen.  X.  7  ;  Isa.  xliii.  3  ;  xlv.  14).    Besides  the  usual  construction  of  the  first 
•     clause,  may  be  mentioned  that  of  Duderlein,  Hensler,  and  Dereser,  who  make 
7^?^  a  verb  (er  schwirrt),  and  that  of  Augusti ;  "  hearken,  oh  land,  to  the 
rushing  of  his  wings  who  is  beyond  the  rivers  of  Ethiopia." 

2.  Sending  by  sea  ambassadors,  and  in  vessels  of  papyrus  on  the  face  of 
the  waters.     Go  ye  light  (or  swift)  messengers,  to  a  nation  drawn  and  skoruy 


844  ISAIAH  XVll I.  [Vkk.  2. 

to  a  people  terrible  since  it  existed  and  onwards,  a  nation  of  donhle  stroKjih, 
and  trampVouj,  whose  land  the  streams  divide.  Nearly  ovcrv  word  and 
phrase  of  this  dilHcult  verse  has  been  the  subject  of  discordant  explanations. 
tV^i)  is  translated  in  the  second  person  (thou  that  sendest)  by  Cocceius. 
Clericus,  Yitringa,  and  Henderson  ;  by  most  other  WTiters  in  the  third. 
It  refers  not  to  God,  but  to  the  people  mentioned  in  ver.  1.  Vitiinga 
construes  it  with  Dy  understood,  Gesenius  with  l^^N  in  the  sense  of  DV,  and 
therefore  masculine.  D*  is  variously  explained  to  mean  the  Red  Sea,  the 
Mediterranean,  and  the  Nile  (Isa.  xix.  5  ;  Nahum  iii.  8).  Bochart  takes 
Dn^V  in  the  sense  of  linages,  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  Egyptian  prac- 
tice, mentioned  by  C^>Til,  Procopius,  and  Lucian,  of  sending  an  image  of 
Osiris  annually  on  the  surface  of  the  sea  to  Byblus  in  Phenicia.  The 
Septuagint  renders  the  word  hostages  {o/j,riPa)  ;  but  all  the  latest  writers 
are  agreed  in  giving  it  the  sense  of  ambassadors,  to  wit,  those  sent  to 
Ethiopia,  or  from  Ethiopia  to  Judah.  The  next  phrase  is  rendered  in  the 
Septuagint,  s-TrioroXag  ^i^VJvac,  but  is  now  universally  explained  to  mean 
vessels  made  of  the  papyrus  plant,  the  use  of  which  upon  the  Nile  is  ex- 
pressly mentioned  by  Theophrastus,  Pliny,  Lucan,  and  Plutarch.  The 
second  clause  of  the  verse  (13?  &c.)  is  regarded  by  some  writers  as  the 
language  of  the  people  who  had  just  been  addressed,  as  if  he  had  said, 
"sending  ambassadors  (and  saying  to  ihem)  go,"  &c.  More  probably, 
however,  the  Prophet  is  still  speaking  in  the  name  of  God.  The  following 
epithets  are  applied  by  some  to  the  Jews,  and  supposed  to  be  descriptive 
of  their  degi*aded  and  oppressed  condition.  Gesenius  and  the  later  writers 
apply  them  to  the  Ethiopians,  and  make  them  descriptive  of  their  warlike 
qualities.  I^^OO,  according  to  usage,  means  drawn  or  dra\ra  out,  which 
is  applied  by  some  to  the  shape  of  the  country,  by  others  to  the  numbers 
engaged  in  foreign  war,  by  the  Septuagint  and  Hitzig  to  the  stature  of  the 
people.  This  meaning  is  rejected  by  Gesenius  in  his  Commentary,  but 
approved  in  his  Thesaurus.  The  meanings  convulsed  (A^ulgate),  and  torn 
(Luther),  are  not  justified  by  usage.  Those  of  ancient,  inaccessible,  and 
scattered,  are  entirely  conjectural.  t2~l1D  for  t2~1100  properly  denotes  shorn 
or  shaven,  and  is  applied  by  some  to  the  Ethiopian  and  Egyptian  practice 
of  shaving  the  head  and  beard,  while  others  understand  it  as  a  figure  for  rob- 
bery and  spoHation.  Some  understand  it  to  mean  smoothed  or  smooth,  and 
by  implication  beautiful.  Others  apply  it  to  the  character,  and  take  it  in  the 
sense  of  brave  or  fierce.  Nin  JO  is  by  some  applied  to  time,  from  the  first  and 
hitherto,  from  the  earliest  time,  from  this  time  ;  by  others  to  place,  from  this 
place  and  onward.  Many  interpreters  make  it  comparative,  more  terrible  than 
this,  or  any  other,  more  terrible  than  this  and  farther  off.  In  favour  of  ap- 
plying it  to  time,  are  the  analogous  expressions  in  1  Sam.  xviii.  0,  while  1  Sam. 
XX.  '22  justifies  the  local  sense.  Ip'IP  is  explained  by  Clericus  to  be  the 
proper  name  of  the  Egyptian  plant  called  kiki.  Most  \\Titers  take  it  in  its 
usual  sense  of  hue,  i.e.  as  some  suppose,  a  rule  or  precept,  the  people 
being  described  as  burdened  with  superstitious  rites ;  according  to  others, 
a  measuring  line,  meted  or  meting  out  others  to  destruction  ;  according  to 
a  third  class,  a  boundary  line,  enlarging  its  boundaries.  Some  make  it 
mean  on  every  side,  and  others  Inj  degrees,  in  both  cases  qualifying  that 
which  follows.  But  the  latest  German  writers  make  the  word  identical 
with  the  Arabic  ly,  meaning  power,  the  reduplication  signifying  double 
strength.  nD130  must  then  have  an  active  sense,  a  people  of  trampling. 
i.  e.  trampling  on  their  enemies.     Those  who  apply  the  description  to  the 


Yer.  3,  4. J  ISAIAH  XVIII .  345 

Jews  give  the  word  of  course  a  passive  sense,  a  people  trampled  on  by  tlieir 
oppressors.  By  rivers,  in  the  last  clause,  some  suppose  nations  to  he 
meant,  or  the  Assyrians  in  particular ;  but  most  writers  understand  it 
hterally  as  a  description  of  the  country.  NT2  is  explained  by  the  Rabbins 
as  a  synonyme  of  t?3,  to  spoil  or  plunder,  and  a  few  manuscripts  read  1TT3. 
Others  give  the  verb  the  sense  of  nourishing,  watering,  overflowing,  wash- 
ing away,  promising ;  but  the  best  sense  is  that  of  cutting  up,  cutting 
through,  or  simply  dividing,  in  allusion  to  the  abundant  irrigation  of 
Ethiopia.  Vitringa  supposes  this  clause  to  refer  to  the  annual  overflowing 
of  the  Nile,  and  the  one  before  it  to  the  EgA-ptian  practice  of  treading  the 
grain  into  the  soil  when  softened  by  the  inundation. 

3.  All  ye  ivliahitants  of  the  world,  and  dwellers  on  the  earth,  shall  see  as 
it  were  the  raising  of  a  standard  on  the  mountains,  and  shall  hear  as  it 
were  the  Mowing  of  a  trumpet.  Another  construction,  more  generally 
adopted,  makes  the  verbs  imperative,  and  the  3  a  particle  of  time,  as  it 
usually'  is  before  the  infinitive.  So  the  English  Version  :  see  ye  when  he 
lifteth  np  an  ensign  on  the  mountains,  and  when  he  hloioeth  a  tru~rpet  hear 
ye.  There  seems,  however,  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from 
the  strict  translation  of  the  verbs  as  future ;  and  if  this  be  retained,  it  is 
better  to  make  3  a  particle  of  comparison.  In  either  case,  the  verse  in- 
vites the  attention  of  the  world  to  some  gi'eat  event.  The  restricted  ex- 
planation of  ^3n  and  p^5,  as  meaning  layid  or  country,  is  entirely  arbitrary. 
According  to  Yitringa,  Geseuius,  Rosenmiiller,  and  Maurer,  the  signals 
meant  are  those  of  the  Ass^Tian  invader,  or  those  announcing  his  destruc- 
tion ;  but  according  to  Doderlein,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Knobel,  the 
signals  by  means  of  which  the  Ethiopians  vrould  collect  their  forces. 

4.  For  thus  said  (or  saith)  Jehovah  to  mc,  I  will  rest  (remain  quiet)  and 
xvill  look  on  (as  a  mere  spectator)  in  my  dwelling-place,  like  a  serene  heat 
upon  lierljs,  like  a  cloud  of  dew  (or  dewy  cloud),  in  the  heat  of  harvest  {i.e. 
the  heat  preceding  haiwest,  or  the  heat  by  which  the  crop  is  ripened). 
This  verse  assigns  a  reason  for  the  preceding  invitation  to  attend.  The 
obvious  meaning  of  the  figure  is,  that  God  would  let  the  enemy  proceed  in 
the  execution  of  his  purposes  until  they  were  nearly  accomplished.  Gese- 
nius  and  the  later  ^mters  explain  3  before  DH  and  "^V  as  a  particle  of  time, 
"  during  the  heat  and  dewy  cloud,"  i.  e.  the  summer  season.  This  use  of 
the  particle,  which  is  very  common  before  the  infinitive,  is  rare  and  doubt- 
ful before  nouns,  and  ought  not  to  be  assumed  -without  necessity.  Accord- 
ing to  this  construction,  the  words  merely  indicate  the  time  of  God's 
apparent  inaction.  If  we  give  the  3  its  proper  sense  as  a  comparative 
particle,  the  meaning  seems  to  be,  that  he  would  not  only  abstain  from 
interfering  with  the  enemy,  but  would  even  favour  his  success  to  a  certain 
point,  as  dew  and  sunshine  would  promote  the  growth  of  plants.  The 
latest  writers  give  to  -)'>|j^  the  sense  of  sunshine,  and  explain  the  whole 
phrase  to  mean  the  clear  or  genial  heat  which  accompanies  the  sunshine, 
and  is  produced  by  it.  But  as  this  requires  the  preposition  (yj?)  to  be 
taken  iii  an  unusual  sense,  it  is  better  perhaps  to  regard  "11^  as  synonymous 
with  nniNj  herb  or  herbage.  Some  of  the  Rabbins  explain  "IIX,  here  and 
in  Job  xxxvi.  22,  xxxvii.  11,  as  meaning  rain  (like  clear  heat  after  rain)  ; 
but  of  this  sense  there  are  no  decisive  examples.  Junius  and  Lowth  make 
V13P  the  object  of  the  contemplation,  whereas  it  is  merely  added  to  express 
the  idea  of  rest  at  home,  as  opposed  to  activity  abroad.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary-, therefore,  to  explain  the  noun  as  meaning  heaven,  although  this  is 
better  than  its  application  to  the  earthly  sanctuar}-. 


346  ISAIAH  XVI 11.  [Ver.  5-7. 

5.  For  he/ore  the  harvest,  as  the  bloom  is  finished,  and  the  fiower  hecomes 
a  ripening  grape,  he  cuts  down  the  branches  with  the  pruning  knives,  and  the 
tdidrils  he  removes,  he  cuts  away.  The  obvious  meaning  of  the  figure  is, 
that  although  God  would  suffer  the  designs  of  the  enemy  to  approach  com- 
pletion, he  would  nevertheless  interfere  at  the  last  moment,  and  destroy  both 
him  and  them.  Some  \NTiters  give  to  ^3  the  sense  of  but,  in  order  to  make 
the  antithesis  clearer  ;  but  in  this,  as  in  many  other  cases,  the  particle  re- 
fers to  something  more  remote  than  the  immediately  preceding  words, 
and  is  correctly  explained  by  Knobel  as  correlative  and  parallel  with  the 
^3  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  4,  As  if  he  had  said,  let  all  the  world  await  the 
great  catastrophe — -for  I  will  let  the  enemy  almost  attain  his  end — but  let 
them  still  attend — /or  before  it  is  attained,  I  will  destroy  him.  The  verbs 
in  the  last  clause  ma}'  either  be  referred  directly  to  Jehovah  as  their  sub- 
ject, or  construed  indefinitely,  one  shall  cut  them  down.  Jarchi  supplies 
the  participle  or  cognate  noun  (mi^n  n"l3)  as  in  chap.  xvi.  10.  The  form 
Tn.n  is  derived  by  Gesenius  from  VF\,  by  Hitzig  from  Ttri,  and  bj'  Knobel 
from  tri3,  but  all  agree  as  to  the  meaning.  The  verb  n;|.n^  receives  its  form 
from  the  predicate,  and  not  from  the  subject,  which  is  feminine.  (See 
Gesenius,  §  184.) 

G.   They  sluill  he  left  together  to  the  wild  birds  of  the   mountains,  and  to 
tlic  wild  beasts  of  the  earth  (or  land),  and  the  wild  bird  shall  summer  thereon, 
and  every  wild   beast    of  the  earth  (or  land)  thereon  shall  ivinter.     It   is 
commonly  supposed  that  there  is  here  a  transition  from  the  figure  of  a  vine- 
yard to  that  of  a   dead  body,  the  branches  cut  off  and  thro\\ii  away  being 
suddenly  transformed  into  carcasses  devoured  b}'  beasts  and  birds.     For  a 
like  combination,  vide  supra,   chap.   xiv.    19.       But  this    interpretation, 
though  perhaps  the  most  natural,  is  not  absolutely  necessary.     As  the  act 
of  devouring  is  not  expressly  mentioned,  the  reference  may  be,  not  to  the 
Oiirnivorous  habits  of  the  animals,  but  to  their  wild   and   solitary  life.     In 
that  case,  the  sense  would  be,  that  the  amputated  branches,  and  the  deso- 
lated vinej'ard  itself,  shall  furnish  lairs  and  nests  for  beasts  and  birds  which 
commonly  frequent  the  wildest  solitudes,  implying  abandonment  and  utter 
desolation.     This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  put  upon  the  words  by  Luther, 
who  translates  the  verbs  shall  make  their  nests  and  lie  therein  (darinnen 
nisten,  darinnen  liegen).     The  only  reason  for  preferring  this  interpreta- 
tion is  that  it  precludes  the  necessity  of  assuming  a  mixed  metaphor,  or 
an  abrupt  exchange  of  one  for  another,  both  which,  however,  are  too  com- 
mon in  Isaiah  to  excite  surprise.     On  either  supposition,  the  general  mean- 
ing of  the  verse  is  obvious.      The  form  of  the  last  clause  is  idiomatic, 
the  birds  being  said  to  spend  the  summer  and  the  beasts  the  winter,  not 
with  reference  to  any  real  difference  in   their  habits,  but  for  the  pui*pose 
of  expressmg  the  idea,  that  beasts  and  birds  shall  occupy  the  spot  thi-ough- 
out  the  3^ear.       According  to  the    common   explanation   of    the  verse  as 
referring  to  dead  bodies,  it  is  a  hyperbolical  description  of  their  multi- 
tude, as  furnishing  repast  for  a  whole  year  to  the  beasts  and  birds  of  prey. 
7.  At  that  time  Khali  he  hrouglit  a  gift  to  Jehurak  of  hosts,  a  people  drawn 
out  and  sJtorii,  and  from  a  people  terrible  since  it  has  been  and  onward  (or 
still  more  terrible  and  still  farther  off),  a  nation  of  double  poner  and  tramp- 
ling, whose  land  streams  divide,   to   the  place  of  the    name  of   Jehovah   of 
hosts,  mount  Zion.     Here,  as  in  ver.   2,  the  sense  of  some  particular  ex- 
pressions is  so  doubtful,  that  it  seems  better  to  retain,  as  far  as  possible, 
the  form  of  the  original,  with  all  its  ambiguity,  than  to  attempt  an  explana- 
tory paraphrase.     All  are  agreed  that  we  have  here  the  prediction  of  an  act 


Ver.  7.j  ISAIAH  XIX.  347 

of  homage  to  Jehovah,  occasioned  by  the  great  event  described  in  the  pre- 
ceding verses.  The  Jews,  who  understand  the  second  verse  as  a  description 
of  the  sufferings  endured  by  Israel,  explain  this  as  a  prophecy  of  their 
return  from  exile  and  dispersion,  aided,  and  as  it  were  presented  as  an 
offering  to  Jehovah,  by  the  heathen.  (Vide  infra,  chap.  Ixvi.  20.)  The 
older  Christian  writers  understand  it  as  predicting  the  conversion  of  the 
Egyptians  or  Ethiopians  to  the  true  religion.  Whoever,  says  Gesenius,  is 
fond  of  tracing  the  fulfilment  of  such  prophecies  in  later  history,  may  find 
this  one  verified  in  Rev.  viii.  26,  seq.,  and  still  more  in  the  fact  that  Abys- 
sinia is  at  this  day  the  only  great  Christian  power  of  the  East.  Gesenius 
himself,  with  the  other  recent  Germans,  understands  the  verse  as  describ- 
ing a  solemn  contemporary  recognition  of  Jehovah's  power  and  divinity,  as 
displayed  in  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army.  According  to  Gesenius, 
two  different  nations  are  described  both  here  and  in  ver.  2,  an  opinion  which 
he  thinks  is  here  confirmed  by  the  insertion  of  the  copulative  1  before  the 
second  DV.  But  Knobel  refers  to  chap,  xxvii.  1,  and  Zech.  ix.  9,  as  prov- 
ing that  this  form  of  expression  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  plurality 
of  subjects.  A  stronger  argument  in  favour  of  Gesenius's  hypothesis  is 
furnished  by  the  insertion  of  the  preposition  before  the  second  DV.  The 
most  natural  construction  of  the  words  would  seem  to  be  that  the  gift  to 
Jehovah  should  consist  of  one  people  offered  by  another.  Most  interpre- 
ters, however,  including  Gesenius  himself,  infer  that  P  must  be  supplied 
before  the  first  ^V  also — a  gift  shall  be  brought  {from)  a  people,  &c.,  and 
from  a  people,  &c. — whether  the  latter  be  another  or  the  same.  If  another, 
it  may  be  Ethiopia  as  distinguished  from  Egypt,  or  Meroe  as  distinguished 
from  Ethiopia.  If  the  same,  it  may  either  be  Egypt,  or  more  probably 
the  kingdom  of  Tirhakah,  including  Ethiopia  and  Upper  Egypt.  The  sub- 
stitution of  Dy  here  for  ''15  in  ver.  2,  and  the  antithesis  between  them  there, 
are  regarded  by  Cocceius  as  significant,  and  founded  on  the  constant  usage 
of  ^iil  to  denote  a  heathen  and  DV  a  believing  people.  Most  other  writers 
seem  to  regard  them  as  poetical  equivalents.  The  place  of  God's  name  is 
not  merely  the  place  called  by  his  name,  as  explained  by  Clericus  and  J. 
D.  Michaelis,  but  the  place  where  his  name,  i.  e.  the  manifestation  of  his 
attributes,  resides. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

This  chapter  admits  of  a  well-defined  division  into  two  parts,  one  of 
which  contains  threatenings  (vers.  1-17),  and  the  other  promises  (vers. 
18-25).  The  first  part  may  again  be  subdivided.  In  vers.  1-4,  the 
Egyptians  are  threatened  with  a  penal  visitation  from  Jehovah,  with  the 
downfall  of  their  idols,  with  intestine  commotions,  with  the  disappointment 
of  their  superstitious  hopes,  and  with  subjection  to  hard  masters.  In 
vers.  5-10  they  are  threatened  with  physical  calamities,  the  drying  up  of 
their  streams,  the  decay  of  vegetation,  the  loss  of  their  fisheries,  and  the 
destruction  of  their  manufactures.  In  vers.  11-17,  the  wisdom  of  their 
wise  men  is  converted  into  folly,  the  courage  of  their  brave  men  into 
cowardice,  industry  is  universally  suspended,  and  the  people  filled  with 
dread  of  the  anger  of  Jehovah.  The  second  part  may  be  also  subdivided. 
In  vers.  18-21,  the  Egyptians  are  described  as  acknowledging  the  true 
God,  in  consequence  of  what  they  had  suffered  at  his  hand,  and  the  de- 
liverance which  he  had  gi-anted  them.     In  vers.  22-25,  the  same  cause  is 


348  ISAIAH  XIX. 

described  as  leading  to  an   intimate  union  between  Egypt,  Assyria,  and 
Israel,  in  the  service  of  Jehovah,  and  the  enjoyment  of  his  favour. 

Cocceius  takes  Koypt  in  what  he  calls  its  mystical  sense,  as  meaning 
Kome,  or  the  Roman  empire,  and  explains  the  chapter  as  a  synopsis  of 
Church  history  from  the  conversion  of  Constaiitiue  to  the  latest  time.  Both 
the  fundamental  hypothesis  and  the  details  of  his  exposition  are  entirely 
arbitraiy.  He  also  violates  the  obvious  relation  of  the  parts  by  making  the 
whole  chapter  minatory  in  its  import.  A  similar  objection  lies  against  the 
theory  of  Cyril,  Eusebins,  Jerome,  and  others,  who  understand  the  whole 
as  a  prediction  of  the  conversion  of  the  Egv-ptians  to  Christianity.  ]3ut 
the  first  part  (vers.  1-17)  cannot  be  explained,  except  by  violence,  either 
as  a  promise  or  a  figurative  description  of  conversion.  Junius  errs  in  the 
opposite  extreme,  by  applying  the  first  part  in  a  literal  sense  to  events  in 
the  early  history  of  Egypt,  and  the  last  in  a  figurative  sense  to  the  calling 
of  the  gentiles,  without  sufticienth'  explaining  the  transition  or  connection 
of  the  parts.  Grotius  applies  the  whole  to  events  which  occurred  before  the 
advent.  He  regards  the  first  part  as  a  description  of  the  troubles  in  Egypt 
during  the  dodecarchy  which  preceded  the  reign  of  Psammetichus,  the  last 
part  as  a  prophecy  of  the  diffusion  oi  the  true  religion  by  the  influx  of 
Jews  into  Egypt.  Clericus  agrees  with  him  in  principle,  but  difiers  in  de- 
tail by  referring  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  to  the  conquest  of  Egypt  by 
Nebuchadnezzar.  J.  D.  Michaelis  takes  the  same  general  view,  but  applies 
the  first  part  to  the  troubles  in  Egj-pt  under  Hethos,  and  the  last  part  to 
the  recognition  of  Jehovah  as  a  true  God  by  the  Egv'ptians  themselves,  but 
without  abjuring  heathenism.  Yitringa  more  ingeniously  explains  the  first 
part  as  a  prediction  of  the  conquest  of  Egypt  by  the  Persians,  and  the 
second  as  a  promise  of  deliverance  by  Alexander  the  Great,  and  of  general 
peace  and  friendly  intercourse,  as  well  as  rehgious  advancement  under  his 
successors,  the  S3rian  and  Egj-ptian  kings,  by  which  the  way  would  be  pre- 
pared for  the  introduction  of  the  Gospel.  This  view  of  the  passage  is  sub- 
stantially adopted  by  Lowth,  Barnes,  and  Henderson.  Of  the  modern 
German  writers,  some  explain  the  difference  between  the  two  parts  of  the 
chapter  by  supposing  an  interpolation.  Thus  Koppe  and  Eichhorn  regard 
vers.  18-25  as  a  distinct  prophecy,  and  even  Geseuius  doubts  the  genuine- 
ness of  vers.  18-20.  Hitzig  supposes  vers.  16-25  to  have  been  forged  by 
Onias,  when  he  induced  Ptolemy  to  build  a  temple  for  the  Jews  at  Leonto- 
polis.  These  absurd  suppositions  have  been  fully  and  triumphantly  refuted 
by  later  \vriters  of  the  same  school,  and  especially  by  Hendewerk  and  Ivno- 
bel.  The  notion  of  Koppe  and  Eichhorn,  that  even  the  first  part  is  later 
than  the  times  of  Isaiah,  has  also  been  exploded.  Ewald  admits  a  pecu- 
liarity of  manner,  but  ascribes  it  to  the  old  age  of  Isaiah,  when  this  prophecy 
was  written.  Gesenius,  Kosenmiillcr,  Hendewerk,  and  Knobel,  proceeding 
on  the  twofold  supposition,  that  the  fu'st  part  must  describe  the  events  of  a 
particular  period,  and  that  prophetic  foresight  is  impossible,  are  under  the 
necessity  of  finding  something  ui  the  contemporary  history  of  Egj-pt,  corres- 
ponding to  the  terms  of  the  description.  Gesenius  and  Knobel,  in  particu- 
lar, have  taken  vast  pains  to  combine  and  reconcile  the  contradictory  accounts 
of  Herodotus,  Diodonis,  and  Manetho,  as  to  the  dynasties  of  Egypt,  the 
succession  of  the  several  monarchs,  and  especially  the  date  of  the  acces- 
sion of  Psammetichus.  Ewald  and  Umbreit,  much  more  rationally,  reject 
the  hypothesis  of  specific  historical  allusions,  and  regard  the  whole  as  an 
indefinite  anticipation.  On  the  same  general  principle,  but  with  a  far  closer 
approximation  to  the  truth,  Calvin  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  understand  the 


Ver.  1,  2. J  ISAIAH  XIX.  349 

chapter  as  a  prophetic  picture  of  the  downfall  of  the  old  Egyptian  empire, 
and  of  the  subsequent  conversion  of  its  people.  The  most  correct  view  of 
the  matter  seems  to  be  as  follows  :  The  Prophet,  wishing  to  announce  to 
the  Jews  the  decline  and  foil  of  that  great  heathen  power,  in  which  they 
were  so  constantly  disposed  to  trust  (xxx.  1,  xxxi.  1),  describes  the  event 
under  figures  borrowed  from  the  actual  condition  of  Egypt.  As  a  wiiter, 
who  should  now  predict  the  downfall  of  the  British  empire,  in  a  poetical 
and  figurative  style,  would  naturally  speak  of  its  fleets  as  sunk  or  scattered, 
its  colonies  dismembered,  its  factories  destroyed,  its  railways  abandoned,  its 
universities  abohshed,  so  the  Prophet  vividly  portrays  the  fall  of  Egypt, 
by  describing  the  waters  of  the  Nile  as  failing,  its  meadows  withering,  its 
fisheries  ceasing,  and  the  pecuhar  manufactures  of  the  country  expiring,  the 
proverbial  wisdom  of  the  nation  changed  to  folly,  its  courage  to  cowardice, 
its  strength  to  weakness.  Whether  particular  parts  of  the  description  were 
intended  to  have  a  more  specific  application,  is  a  question  not  afiecting  the 
truth  of  the  hypothesis,  that  the  first  part  is  a  metaphorical  description  of 
the  downfall  of  the  great  Eg}-ptian  monarchy.  So  too  in  the  second  part, 
the  introduction  of  the  true  religion,  and  its  efiect  as  well  on  the  internal 
state  as  on  the  international  relations  of  the  difterent  countries,  is  expressed 
by  figures  drawn  from  the  civil  and  religious  institutions  of  the  old  economy. 
The  comparative  merits  of  this  exegetical  hypothesis  and  those  which  have 
been  previously  stated,  will  be  best  exhibited  in  the  detailed  interpretation 
of  the  chapter.  It  will  only  be  necessary  here  to  add  that  there  is  no  abrupt 
transition,  but  a  natural  and  intimate  connection  between  the  do\vnfall  of  a 
heathen  power  and  the  gi'owth  of  the  true  religion,  and  also  that  nothing 
can  be  more  arbitrary  than  the  exposition  of  the  first  part  as  a  literal,  and 
of  the  other  as  a  metaphorical  prediction. 

1.  Tlie  Burden  of  Etfijpt.  Behold  !  Jehovah  ridhifi  on  a  light  cloud,  and 
he  comes  to  (or  into)  Ec^t/j^t,  and  the  idols  of  Egypt  mure  at  his  prenence,  and 
the  heart  of  Egypt  melts  ivithin  him.  This  verse  describes  God  as  the  author 
of  the  judgments  afterwards  detailed.  His  visible  appearance  on  a  cloud, 
and  the  personification  of  the  idols,  prepare  the  mind  for  a  poetical  descrip- 
tion. Lowth,  Barnes,  and  Henderson,  translate  the  sufiix  in  the  last  word 
her.  But  Onyp  is  here  the  name  of  the  ancestor  (Gen.  x.  6)  put  for  his 
descendants.  The  English  Version  has  the  neuter  it.  The  act  of  riding 
on  a  light  cloud  implies  that  he  comes  from  heaven,  and  that  he  comes 
swiftly.  On  the  contemptuous  import  of  the  word  translated  idols,  vide  supra, 
chap.  ii.  8  ;  on  the  meaning  of  i^^^^,  chap.  xiii.  1. 

2.  And  I  ivill  excite  Egypt  against  Egypt,  and  they  shall  fight,  a  man  with 
his  brother,  and  a  man  ivith  his  fellow,  city  with  city,  kingdom  tcith  kingdom. 
The  first  verb  is  by  some  rendered  arm,  by  others  join  or  engage  in  con- 
flict ;  but  the  sense  of  stirring  up  or  rousing  is  preferred  both  by  the  oldest 
and  the  latest  writers.  The'version  usually  given,  Egyptians  against  Egyp- 
tians, though  substantially  correct,  is  neither  so  expressive  nor  so  true  to 
the  original  as  that  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Augusti,  Egypt  against  Eqt/pt, 
which  involves  an  allusion  to  the  internal  divisions  of  the  kingdom,  or  rather 
the  existence  of  contemporary  kingdoms,  more  explicitly  referred  to  in  the 
other  clause.  The  last  words  are  rendered  in  the  Septuagint,  vo/xos  em 
io/Mv,  meaning  no  doubt  the  thirty-six  7iomes  or  provinces  of  ancient  Egj-pt. 
Grotius,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Gesenius,  and  others,  understand  this  verse  as 
referring  specifically  to  the  civil  wars  of  Egypt  in  the  days  of  Sethos  or 
Psammetichus.  But  while  the  coincidence  with  history  adds  greatly  to 
the  propriety  and  force  of  the  description,  there  is  no  suflicient  reason  for 


850  ISAIAH  XIX.  [Ver.  3-5. 

departing  from  its  obvious  import,  as  a  description  of  internal  strife  and 
anarchy  in  general.  The  expressions  bear  a  strong  resemblance  to  those 
used  in  the  description  of  the  state  of  Judah,  chap.  iii.  5.  Jimius  regards 
these  as  the  words  to  be  uttered  by  Jehovah  when  he  enters  Eg^pt.  It  may, 
however,  be  a  simple  continuation  of  the  prophecy,  with  a  sudden  change 
from  the  third  to  the  first  person,  of  which  there  are  many  other  examples. 

3.  And  the  spirit  of  Egtjpt  shall  be  emptied  out  (or  c.vhousted)  in  the  inidst 
thereof,  and  the  counsel  (or  sar/acitij)  thereof  I  will  sindloic  up  (annihilate  or 
render  useless),  and  then  uill  seek  to  the  idols,  and  to  the  mnttercrs,  and  to 
the  familiar  spirits,  and  to  the  uiuirds.  By  s]>irit  we  are  not  to  understand 
courage  but  intellect.  Gesenius,  in  his  Lexicon,  reads  IS'^'irP  and  renders 
it  out  of  OY  from  the  midst  of  it.  The  original  and  proper  sense  of  U^'^'if, 
seems  to  be  murviurs  or  vrutterinffs,  here  applied  to  the  mutterers  them- 
selves, in  allusion  to  the  ancient  mode  of  incantation,  as  to  which,  and  the 
meaning  of  nmx  and  ^''^y'il!',  vide  siij/ra,  chap.  viii.  19.  "^i??,^  is  variously 
rendered  by  the  early  writers,  troubled,  decayed,  destroyed,  kc,  but  the 
etymology  is  decisive  in  favour  of  the  sense  now  commonly  adapted. 
Augusti  expresses  the  contemptuous  import  of  D''^"'7K  by  translating  it  their 
uretched  yods. 

4.  And  I  uill  shttt  np)  Egyj^t  in  the  hands  of  a  hard  master,  and  a  strong 
Iciny  shall  rule  over  them,  siiith  the  Lord  Jehovah  of  hosts.  As  "l^D  means 
to  shut  up  wherever  it  occurs,  the  intensive  form  here  used  cannot  have 
the  weaker  sense  of  yivivy  tip,  deUverlny,  in  which  some  take  it.  nt.;'i5  and 
ty  do  not  mean  cruel  or  fierce,  but  stern  or  riyorous.  The  first  of  these 
Hebrew  words  is  singular  in  form  but  construed  with  a  plural  noun.  The 
Septuagint  renders  both  phrases  in  the  plural.  Junius  makes  the  first  plural 
and  refers  it  to  the  dodecarchy  which  intervened  between  the  reigns  of 
Sethos  and  Psammetichus.  Cocceius  makes  H^'j?  agree  with  something 
understood  (dominoriim  gravis  dominationis),  and  refers  to  examples  of  a 
similar  construction  in  Exod.xxviii.  17,  Judg.  v.  13,  1  Kings  vii.  42,  2  Ivings 
iii.  4.  Most  of  the  later  writers  are  agi-eed  in  explaining  D''J'^^^  as  a  pluralis 
majestaticus,  elsewhere  applied  to  individual  men  (2  Ivings  xlii.  30,  33, 
2  Kings  ii.  3,  5,  IG).  The  king  here  mentioned  is  identified,  according  to 
their  various  hypotheses,  by  J.  I).  Michaelis  with  Sethos,  by  Grotius,  Gese- 
nius, and  others  with  Psammetichus,  by  the  Rabbins  with  Sennacherib,  by 
Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  with  Sargon,  by  Clericus  with  Nebuchadnezzar,  by 
Vitrhiga  with  Cambyses  or  Ochus,  by  Cocceius  with  Charlemagne.  The 
■very  multiplicity  of  these  explanations  shews  how  fanciful  they  are,  and 
natvu'ally  leads  us  to  conclude,  not  with  Ewald  that  the  Prophet  is  express- 
ing mere  conjectures  or  indefinite  anticipations  (rcine  Ahnung),  but  with 
Calvin  that  he  is  describing  in  a  general  way  the  political  vicissitudes  of 
Egypt,  one  of  which  would  be  subjection  to  an  arbritary  power,  whether 
foreign  or  domestic,  or  to  both  at  difierent  periods  of  its  history. 

5.  And  the  waters  shall  be  dried  vp  from  the  sea,  and  the  river  shall  fail 
and  he  dried  np.  Three  distinct  verbs  are  here  used  in  the  sense  of  drying 
up,  for  which  our  language  does  not  furnish  equivalents.  As  the  Nile  has 
in  all  ages  been  called  a  sea  by  the  Egyptians  (Robinson's  Palestine, 
i.  542),  most  interpreters  suppose  it  be  here  referred  to,  in  both  clauses. 
Gesenius  and  others  understand  the  passage  as  foretelling  a  literal  failure  of 
the  irrigation  upon  which  the  fertility  of  Egypt  depends.  Yitringa,  Knobel, 
and  others,  explain  it  as  a  figurative  threatening  of  disorder  and  calamity. 
Grotius  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  decay  of  the  Egyptian  commerce  as 
conducted  on  the  Nile  and  the  adjacent  seas ;  Cahin  to  the  loss  of  the 


Yer.  6,  7.]  ISAIAH  XIX.  351 

defence  and  military  strength  afforded  by  these  waters.     According  to  the 
exegetical  hA'pothesis  laid  down  in  the  introduction  to  the  chapter,  this  is  a 
prediction  of  Egypt's  national  decline  and  fall,  clothed  in  figures  drawn  from 
the  characteristic  features  of  its  actual  condition.     As  the  desolation  of  our 
own  western  territor}^  might  be  poetically  represented  as  the  drying  up  of 
the  Mississippi  and  its  branches,  so  a  like  event  in  the  history  of  Egj'pt 
would  be  still  more  naturally  described  as  a  desiccation  of  the  Nile,  because 
that  river  is  still  more  essential  to  the  prosperity  of  the  country  which  it 
waters.     In  favour  of  this  figurative  exposition  is  the  difficulty  of  applying 
the  description  to  particular  historical  events,  and  also  the  whole  tenor  of 
the  context,  as  will  be  more  clearly  seen  hereafter.     The  Septuagint  treats 
•in^J  as  an  active  form  of  ^ri^,  to  drink,  the  Egyptians  shall  drink  water 
from  the  sea.     Aquila  makes  it  a  passive  fromthe  same  root,  shall  be  drunk 
up  or  absorbed.     Hitzig  derives  it  from  ^D^,  in  the  sense  of  settling,  sub- 
siding, and  so  fixiling.     Gesenius  and  most  other  writers  make  it  a  deriva- 
tive of  ni'O.     Junius  understands  this  verse  as  relating  to  the  diversion  of 
the  waters  of  the  Nile  to  form  the  lake  Moeris,  and  Luzzatto  proposes  to  take 
DJ  as  the  name  of  the  lake  itself.     By  the  drying  up  of  the  seas  and  rivers, 
Cocceius  understands  the  irruption  of  the  Saracens  and  Turks  into  Eui-ope. 
6.  And  the  rivers  shall  stink,  (or  become  putrid),  the  streams  of  Egypt 
are  emptied  and  dried  tip,  reed  and  rush  sichen  (pine  or  wither).     The 
streams  meant  are  the  natural  and  artifical  branches  of  the  Nile.     "ib<!'  is  an 
Egyptian  word  meaning  river,  and  is  specially  appropriated  to  the  Nile 
itself.     The  older  writers  take  "il^O  in  its  usual  meaning  of  defence  or  forti- 
fication, and  understand  the  whole  phrase  as  denoting  either  the  moats  and 
ditches  of  fortified  places,  or  walled  reservoirs.     The  modern  Avriters  regard 
,li^*P  ^s  the  singular  of  D^tiVP,  denoting  either  Lower  Egypt  or  the  whole 
country  indiscriminately.     Ewald  translates  it  A)u/stland,  in  allusion  to  the 
supposed  root  "i-1^*  or  "i^V)  to  press,     "in^^t^^n  isexplained  by  the  older  writers 
as  meaning  to  depart  or  to  be  turned  away,  but  is  now  commonly  under- 
stood to  denote  the  stench  or  putrescence  produced  by  the  failure  of  the 
Nile  to  fill  its  branches  or  canals.     Gesenius  explains  it  as  a  mixed  form 
compounded  of  the  Chaldee  and  Hebrew  Hiphil ;  Ewald,  Maurer,  Hitzig, 
and  Ivnobel,  as  a  verb,  derived  from  an  adjective  nJT^,  and  meaning  fetid 
or  putrescent.     The  reed  and  rush  are  mentioned  as  a  common  gi'owth  in 
marshy  situations.     The  Septuagint  makes  ^-"ID  mean  the  papyrus,  Vitringa 
and  Lowth  the  lotus.  « 

7.  The  meadows  by  the  river,  hj  the  moidh  of  the  river,  and  all  the  sown 
ground  of  the  river,  shall  ivither,  being  driven  away,  and  it  is  not  (or  shall 
be  no  more).  The  Septuagint  for  riil^y  has  ayj,  which  it  elsewhere  gives  as 
the  equivalent  of  -inj^j  an  Egyptian  word  meaning,  according  to  Jerome, 
everything  green  that  grows  in  the  marshes  of  the  Nile,  Luther,  Cahan, 
and  others,  explain  it  to  mean  grass.  Gesenius  derives  it  from  iTliy  to  be 
naked,  and  explains  it  to  mean  bare  or  open  places,  ^.  e.  meadows,  as  distin- 
guished from  woodland.  The  English  and  some  other  Versions  treat  it  as 
the  name  of  the  papyrus,  but  without  authority.  The  English  version  also 
takes  1X^  as  a  collective  (brooks),  and  Barnes  errroneously  observes  that 
the  Hebrew  word  is  here  in  the  plural  number.  It  is  the  word  already 
mentioned  as  the  common  name  in  Scripture  for  the  Nile,  nor  is  there  anyneed 
of  departing  from  this  sense  in  the  case  before  us  by  translating  it  canals, 
as  Lowth  does.  Calvin  explains  mouth  to  mean  source  or  fountain,  which 
is  wholly  arbitrary.  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Gesenius,  and  others  regard  it  as 
synonymous  with  lip,  used  elsewhere  (Gen.  xU.  3,  Exod.  ii.  3)  to  denote 


852  ISAIAU  XIX.  [Ver.  8-10. 

the  brink  or  margin  of  the  Nile.  Knobel  gives  the  same  sense  to  the 
Hebrew  word  in  Prov.  viii.  29.  Hendewerk  and  some  of  the  older  wi'iters  give 
the  word  its  geographical  sense,  as  denoting  the  place  where  the  waters  of  a 
stream  are  discharged  into  another,  or  the  sea.  Vyp  is  not  produce  (Hen- 
derson), but  a  local  noun  meaning  the  ;3?oce  of  seed  or  sowing,  i.  e.  culti- 
vated grounds  here  distinguished  from  the  meadows  or  uncultivated  pastures. 
Plll^  is  commonly  supposed  to  refer  to  the  driving  awa}'  of  the  withered  and 
pulverized  herbage  by  the  wind.  The  Vulgate  seems  to  take  nnj?  as  a 
verb,  and  the  first  clause  as  describing  the  disclosure  of  the  bed  of  the 
river  by  the  sinking  of  the  water  (nudabitur  alveus  rivi  a  fonte  suo).  The 
decay  of  vegetation  here  predicted,  Cocceius  explains  to  be  the  dying  out 
of  Christianity  in  those  parts  of  Europe  conquered  by  the  Saracens  and 
Turks. 

8.  And  the  Jishernuit  shall  wouni,  and  they  shall  lament,  all  the  thmxrcrs 
of  a  hook  into  the  rivrr  (Nile),  and  the  spreaders  of  a  net  upon  the  surface 
of  the  xiater,  lanr/nish.  Having  described  the  effect  of  the  drought  on 
vegetation,  he  now  describes  its  effect  upon  those  classes  of  the  people  who 
were  otherwise  dependent  on  the  river  for  subsistence.  The  multitude  of 
fishes  in  the  Nile,  and  of  people  engaged  in  catching  them,  is  attested  both 
by  ancient  and  modern  writers.  The  use  of  fish  in  ancient  EgA'pt  was 
promoted  by  the  popular  superstitions  with  respect  to  other  animals.  The 
net  is  said  to  be  not  now  used  in  the  fisheries  of  Egypt.  It  is  remarkable, 
however,  that  the  implement  itself  appears  on  some  of  the  old  monuments. 
This  verse  is  not  to  be  applied  to  an  actual  distress  among  the  fishermen 
at  any  one  time,  but  to  be  viewed  as  a  characteristic  tritit  in  the  pro- 
phetic picture.  When  he  speaks  of  a  wine-growing  country,  as  Calvin  well 
observes,  the  Prophet  renders  vineyards  and  vine-dressers  prominent 
objects.  So  here,  when  he  speaks  of  a  country  abounding  in  fisheries  and 
fishermen,  he  describes  their  condition  as  an  index  or  symbol  of  the  state 
of  the  country.  In  like  manner,  a  general  distress  in  our  southern  States 
might  be  described  as  a  distress  among  the  sugar,  cotton,  or  tobacco 
planters.  By  the  fishermen  of  this  verse,  Cocceius  understands  the  bishops, 
archbishops,  and  patriarchs,  whose  sees  became  subjected  to  the  Moslem 
domination,  with  sarcastic  allusion  to  the  seal  of  the_  Fishermen  b}'  which 
the  Pope  authenticates  his  briefs. 

9.  And  ashamed  (disappointed  or  confounded)  are  the  workers  of 
coTn/ieri  (or  hatchelled)  flax,  and  the  weavers  o/"  WaVe  (stuff's).  The  older 
writers  suppose  the  class  of  persons  here  described  to  be  the  manufacturers 
of  nets  for  fishing,  and  took  ^"IIH  in  the  sense  of  perforated  open-work,  or 
net-work.  The  moderns  understand  the  verse  as  having  reference  to  the 
working  of  flax  and  manufacture  of  linen.  Knobel  supposes  ''"'in  to  mean 
cottan,  as  being  white  by  nature  and  before  it  is  wrought.  Some  of  the 
older  writers  identified  nip^lC*  with  sericum,  the  Latin  word  for  silk.  Calvin 
supposes  an  allusion  in  the  last  clause  to  the  diaphanous  garments  of  luxu- 
rious women.  Cocceius  applies  the  verse  to  those  who  would  force  all  men 
hito  one  church  or  commonwealth,  like  fish  collected  in  a  net. 

10.  And  her  pillars  (or  foundations)  are  broken  down,  all  lahourers 
for  hire  are  grieved  at  heart.      Many  of  the   older  writers  suppose  the 

allusion  to  the  fisheries  to  be  still  continued,  and  arbitrarily  make  ninJ^  mean 
nets,  and  ^%).  fish.  Others  take  nin^'  in  the  sense  of  looms  or  weavers, 
and  Ip.p'  ^5?'y  in  that  oibrervers  or  makers  of  strong  drink,  which  last  inter- 
pretation is  as  old  as  the  Septuagint  version  (o/  rroioivng  rlv  ^vdoc).  The 
simplest  exposition  of  the  verse  is  that  proposed  by  Gesenius  and  adopted 


Ver.  11,  12.]  ISAIAH  XIX.  353 

by  most  succeecling  writers,  which  regards  this  as  a  general  description  of 
distress  extending  to  the  two  great  classes  of  society,  thepillarsor  chief  men, 
and  the  labourers  or  commonality.  Hendewerk  less  naturally  understands 
by  the  TWn^  or  foundations,  the  agricultural  class  as  distinguished  from 
manufacturers  and  traders.  All  the  late  wi'iters  explain  '''??>',  not  as  the 
plural  of  DJi<,  a  pool,  but  of  an  adjective  signifying  sorrowful,  from  one  of 
the  senses  of  the  same  root  in  Chaldee.  This  explanation  of  *'?J^it  removes 
all  necessity  and  ground  for  taking  £^S3,  in  any  other  than  its  usual  sense. 

11.  Only  foolish  (i.  e.  entirely  foohsh)  are  the  princes  of  Zoan,  the 
sages  of  the  counsellors  of  Pharaoh,  (their)  counsel  is  become  brutish  (or 
irrational).  How  can  ye  say  to  Pharaoh,  I  am  the  son  of  wise  (fathers), 
I  am.  the  son  of  kings  of  old  1  The  reference  is  not  merely  to  perplexity 
in  actual  distress,  but  also  to  an  unwise  policy  as  one  of  the  causes  of  the 
distress  itself.  The  meaning  of  ■^^<  is  not  for  or  surely,  but  only,  nothing 
else,  exclusively.  Zoan,  the  Tanis  of  the  Greeks,  was  one  of  the  most 
ancient  cities  of  Lower  Egypt  (Num.  xiii.  22),  and  a  royal  residence.  The 
name  is  of  Egyptian  origin,  and  signifies  a  low  situation.  Pharaoh  was  a 
common  title  of  the  Egyptian  kings.  It  is  originally  an  Egyptian  noun 
with  the  article  prefixed.  *P?n  cannot  agree  directly  as  an  adjective  with 
^-^y!",  {wise  counsellors) — but  muel  either  be  in  apposition  with  it  (the  wise 
men,  counsellors  of  Pharaoh,  2  Kings  x.  6) — or  be  understood  as  a  super- 
lative (the  wisest  of  the  counsellors  of  Pharaoh).  The  statesmen  and  cour- 
tiers of  ancient  Egypt  belonged  to  the  sacerdotal  caste,  from  which  many 
of  the  kings  were  also  taken.  The  wisdom  of  Egypt  seems  to  have  been 
proverbial  in  the  ancient  world  (1  Kings  iv.  30  ;  Acts  vii.  22).  The  last 
clause  is  addressed  to  the  counsellors  themselves.  The  interrogation  im- 
plies the  absurdity  of  their  pretensions.  The  question  is  not,  how  can  you 
say  this  of  Pharaoh  (Luther),  or  how  can  you  dictate  this  to  Pharaoh,  i.  e. 
put  these  words  into  his  mouth  (Junius),  but  how  can  you  say  it,  each  one 
for  himself  ?  Hence  the  use  of  the  singular  number.  ''?<''?  does  not  mean 
sages  or  counsellors  (Vitringa),  but  kings  as  elsewhere.  Cocceius  applies 
the  last  clause  to  the  popish  claim  of  apostolical  succession.  His  com- 
ment on  the  first  clause  may  be  quoted  as  a  characteristic  specimen  of  his 
exegesis.  "  Concilium  certe  stultum  fuit  in  Belgio  novos  episcopatus 
instituere,  quod  factum  A.  1562.  Eodem  anno  primum  bellum  civile  reU- 
gionis  causa  motum  est  in  Gallia,  duce  inde  Francisco  Guisio,  hinc  Ludo- 
vico  Condaeo.  Exitus  fuit  ut  regina  religionis  reformatae  exercitium 
permitteret  sequent!  anno  19  Martii.  An  principes  Galliae  per  principes 
Tsoan  intelHgi  possint,  fortasse  magis  patebit  ex  ver.  13." 

12.  Where  (are)  they?  Where  (are)  thy  toise  men?  Pray  let  them  tell 
thee,  and  (if  that  is  too  much)  let  them  (at  least)  know,  ivhat  Jehovah  of 
Hosts  hath  purposed  against  (or  concerning)  Egypt.  It  was  a  proof  of  their 
false  pretensions  that  so  far  from  being  able  to  avert  the  evil,  they  could 
not  even  foresee  it.  Knobel  thinks  there  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  beHef 
of  the  Egyptians,  as  recorded  by  Herodotus,  that  supernatural  foresight  of 
the  future  is  impossible,  an  article  of  faith  which  they  could  not  more 
devoutly  hold  than  Knobel  himself  appears  to  do.  X3  is  not  an  adverb  of 
time  equivalent  to  mine  (Vulgate),  ox  jam  (Junius),  but  a  particle  of  exhor- 
tation or  entreaty  not  unlike  the  Latin  age  (Cocceius).  -IVT  is  not  synony- 
mous with  •IT'^!  (Sept.  Yulg.  Luther,  Clericus,  Augusti,  Barnes) ;  nor  does 
it  mean  inquire  or  investigate  (Hitzig) ;  nor  is  the  true  text  •ly'iV  (Seeker) ; 

VOL.  I.  Z 


354  TSAIAIT  XIX.  [Yer.  13,  14. 

but  the  word  is  to  bo  taken  in  its  usual  sense  with  emphasis,  or  let  them 
even  know,  as  well  expressed  bj  Calvin  (aut  ctiam  sciant),  and  by  Maurer 
(quin  sciant).  The  repetition  of  the  interrogative  ulwre  is  highly  emphatic, 
through  neglect  of  which  the  expression  is  materially  weakened  in  the 
ancient  versions,  and  by  Luther,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  Henderson,  De  Wette, 
Ewald,  Umbreit.  The  construction  is  assumed  to  be  subjunctive  by  Calvin 
(ut  annuncient),  relative  by  Junius  (qui  indicent),  conditional  by  J.  H. 
Michaelis  (wenn  sie  wissen),  and  indefinite  by  Gesenius  (dass  man's 
erfahre) ;  but  the  simple  imperative,  retained  by  Ewakl,  is  at  once  more 
exact  and  more  expressive.  The  sense  of  /V  is  not  npon  but  either  conce^-n- 
ing  or  against.  Ipa-n 

13.  Infatuated  are  the  chiefs  of  Zion,  deceived  are  the  chiefs  of  Noph,  and 
they  have  miskd  Egypt ,  the  corner  (or  corner-stone)  of  her  tribes.  There  is 
no  need  of  supplying  hut  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence  (Luther).  The 
first  verb  does  not  mean  io  fail  (Septuagint),  or  to  act  lightly  (Cocceius),  or 
to  act  foolishly  (Junius,  Vitriuga,  RosenmuUcr),  but  to  be  rendered  or  be- 
come foolish  (Vulgate),  to  be  infatuated  (Calvin).  The  translation  they  are 
fools  (De  Wette)  is  correct,  but  inadequate.     Noph  is  the  Memphis  of  the 

Greek  geographers,  called  Moph,  Hosea  ix.  6.  It  was  one  of  the  chief 
cities  of  ancient  Egj'pt,  the  roj'al  seat  of  Psammetichus.  After  Alexandria 
was  built  it  declined.  Arabian  ^Yriters  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  cen- 
turies speak  of  its  extensive  and  magnificent  ruins,  which  have  now  almost 
wholly  disappeared.  1NC*3  is  explained  as  if  from  NL*'3  to  lift  up,  by  the 
Septuagint  {h-^uj^ritsav),  the  Peshito  and  Cocceius  (elati  sunt).  The  Vulgate 
renders  it  emarcuernnt.  _  All  others  make  it  the  passive  of  i^V'^,  to  deceive. 
n33  is  not  to  be  read  nJS  (Grotius),  nor  is  it  the  object  of  the  preceding 
verb  (Vulgate,  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Luther),  nor  governed  by  a  preposition 
understood  (Cocceius  quoad  anguhun,  Clericus  in  angulo),  but  construed 
collectively  with  -tyriD  (Calvin,  Vitringa,  Gesenius,  &c.).  It  is  a  figure  not 
for  the  nomes  (Clericus,  Vitringa,  Rosenmiiller),  nor  for  the  noble  families 
(Luther),  nor  for  the  wise  men  (Calvin),  or  the  king  (J.  H.  Michaelis),  but 
for  the  chief  men  of  the  diflerent  castes  (Hitzig,  Ewald).  Knobel  conjec- 
tures that  the  military  caste  may  have  been  predominant  at  Memphis,  as 
the  sacerdotal  was  at  Tanis.  The  view  which  Cocceius  takes  may  be 
gathered  from  a  single  observation.  "  Gallia  et  Belgium  extremae  orae 
spirituahs  Aegypti  sunt." 

14.  Jehovah  hath  mingled  in  the  midst  of  her  a  spirit  of  confusion,  and 
they  have  misled  Kgypt  in  all  its  work,  like  the  vusleading  of  a  drunkard  in 
his  vomit.  This  verse  describes  the  folly  before  mentioned  as  the  eftect  not 
of  natural  causes  or  of  accident,  but  of  a  judicial  infliction.  "^P^  may  be 
either  a  preterite  or  a  present,  but  not  a  future.  It  does  not  strictly  mean 
to  pour  out,  but  in  usage  is  nearly  equivalent,  from  its  frequent  application 
to  the  mixing  or  preparation  of  strong  drinks.  {Vide  supra,  chap.  v.  22.) 
There  is  no  need  of  reading  D3~ip  with  Seeker,  on  the  authority  of  the  an- 
cient versions,  which  evidently  treat  the  singular  sufiix  as  a  collective.  The 
antecedent  of  the  suflSx  is  not  n33  (Hitzig),  but  )*!}^  (Knobel).  The  trans- 
lation breast  or  bosom  is  too  specific.  Sjiirit  here  means  a  supernatural  in- 
fluence. D*V)V  is  not  error  or  perverseness,  but  subversion,  turning  upside 
down,  and  thence  perplexity,  confusion.  It  is  strongly  expressed  by  the 
Vulgate  (spiritum  vertiginis),  and  by  Luther  (Schwindelgeist).  The  plural 
•lyj^n  may  possibly  agree  with  D^VW,  but  it  may  be  more  naturally  construed 
with  the  Egyptians  understood,  or  taken  indefinitely,  as  equivalent  to  a 
passive  form,  they  have  misled  tlwn,  i.  e.  they  have  been  misled.     By  work 


Ver.  15-17.]  ISAIAE  XIX.  355 

we  are  here  to  understand  aifaii's  and  interests.  The  masculine  form  of  the 
suffix  here  returns,  with  the  usual  reference  to  the  national  ancestor. 
niyrin  does  not  directly  denote  staggering,  much  less  rolling  or  wallowing, 
but  the  act  of  wandering  from  the  straight  course  ;  or  retaining  the  passive 
form,  that  of  being  made  to  wander  from  it ;  or,  assuming  the  reflexive 
sense  of  Niphal,  that  of  making  one's  self  to  wander,  leading  one's  self 
astray.  The  same  verb  is  elsewhere  used  in  reference  to  the  unsteady 
motions  of  a  drunken  m?in  (Job  xii.  25  ;  Isa.  xxviii.  7). 

15.  And  there  shall  not  be  to  Ef/i/pt  a  u-ork  tvhich  head  and  tail^  branch 
and  rush,  may  do.  7  is  neither /o/-  nor  in,  but  to,  as  usual  denoting  posses- 
sion, Egyx>t  shall  not  have.  The  translation  shall  not  succeed  or  be  completed 
is  not  a  version,  but  a  paraphrase  of  the  original.  '"I^J?^  is  not  merely  a 
deed  (Gesenius),  much  less  a  great  deed  (Hendewerk),  nor  does  it  refer 
exclusively  to  the  acts  or  occupations  before  mentioned ;  but  it  means  any- 
thing done  or  to  be  done,  including  private  business  and  public  affairs. 
The  figures  of  head  and  tail,  branch  and  rush,  are  used,  as  in  chap.  is.  13, 
to  denote  all  classes  of  society,  or  rather  the  extremes  between  which  the 
others  are  included.  The  Septuagint  translates  the  last  two  beyinninrj  and 
end.  The  Targum  makes  them  all  mean  chiefs  and  rulers.  The  Peshito, 
by  a  strange  repetition  and  inversion,  has  head  and  tail,  tail  and  head. 
Cocceius  thinks  it  easy  to  trace  the  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  in  the  his- 
toiy  of  Europe  from  1590  to  1608. 

16.  In  that  day  shall  Egypt  be  like  women,  and  shall  fear  and  tremble 
from  before  the  shaking  of  the  hand  of  Jehovah  of  hosts,  ivhich  he  {is)  shak- 
ing over  it.  The  comparison  in  the  first  clause  is  a  common  one  for  terror 
and  the  loss  of  courage.  ''P.?0  may  be  rendered  on  account  of,  which  idea 
is  certainly  included,  but  the  true  force  of  the  original  expression  is  best 
retained  by  a  literal  translation.  ^^  riDIJn  is  not  the  act  of  beckoning  for 
the  enemy,  but  that  of  threatening  or  preparing  to  strike.  The  reference 
is  not  to  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army,  but  more  generally  to  the 
indications  of  divine  displeasure.  At  this  verse  Hitzig  supposes  the  forgery 
of  Onias  to  begin,  but  admits  that  it  cannot  be  proved  from  the  use  of  the 
masculine  suffix  in  reference  to  Egypt,  which  occurs  several  times  in  what 
he  assumes  to  be  the  genuine  part  of  this  very  chapter,  nor  does  it  follow 
from  fhe  repetition  of  the  phrase  in  that  day  at  the  beginning  of  vers.  15, 
18,  23,  24,  as  this  formula  occurs  with  equal  frequency  in  the  seventh 
chapter.  Ivnobel  observes,  moreover,  that  this  verse  and  the  next  bear  the 
same  relation  to  ver.  4  that  vers.  11-15  do  to  1-3,  and  are  therefore  neces- 
sary to  complete  the  context. 

17.  And  the  land  of  Judah  shall  be  for  a  terror  (or  become  a  terror)  tmto 
Egypt,  every  person  to  ivhom  one  mentions  it  (or  every  one  who  recalls  it  to 
his  own  mind)  shall  fear  before  the  p>xirpose  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  xvhich  he  is 
p>urposing  against  it.  This  verse  relates,  not  to  the  destruction  of  Senna- 
cherib's army  in  Judah,  nor  to  the  approach  of  the  Assyrians  from  that 
quarter,  nor  to  an  attack  upon  Egypt  by  Judah  itself,  but  to  the  new  feel- 
ings which  would  be  entertained  by  the  Egyptians  towards  the  God  of  the 
Jews  and  the  true  religion.  Judah,  in  a  poUtical  and  militaiy  sense,  might 
still  appear  contemptible  ;  but  in  another  aspect,  and  for  other  reasons,  it 
would  be  an  object  of  respect  and  even  fear  to  the  Egj^tians.  A  difterent 
sense  is  put  upon  the  verse  by  Schultens,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  Dathe,  who 
take  ^<5n  in  the  sense  of  refuge,  deduced  from  an  Ai'abic  analogy.  "ivJJ  is 
referred  by  some  interpreters  to  Judah,  but  the  change  of  gender  renders  it 
more  probable  that  it  relates  to  Egypt.     The  sense  will  then  be  that  the 


356  ISAIAH  XIX.  [Ver.  18. 

knowledge  of  God's  purpose  against  Egypt  will  dispose  its  iubabitanfs  to 
look  with  awe  upon  the  chosen  people.  There  is  no  need  of  taking  '"lO'^^? 
with  Hendewcrk  in  the  strict  sense  of  soil  or  ground,  as  distingiaishcd  from 
the  people.  IvN  is  not  to  be  construed  with  inS*  but  with  I''?!!!.  This 
last  verb  Ewald  takes  in  the  strict  sense  of  causing  to  remember,  or  recall- 
ing to  mind ;  most  other  writers  in  the  secondary  but  more  usual  sense  of 
mentioning.  According  to  Cocceius,  the  Judah  of  this  verse  is  the  northern 
part  of  Europe,  in  which  the  Keformation  was  successfully  established,  and 
which  holds  the  same  relative  position  with  respect  to  the  unreformed 
regions,  that  Judea  occupied  in  reference  to  Egypt. 

18.  In  that  day  there  shall  be  Jive  cities  in  the  land  of  Egypt  speaking  the 
lip  (j.  e.  language)  of  Canaan,  and  siveanng  to  Jehovah  of  hosts.  The  city 
of  destruction  shall  he  said  to  one  {i.  e.  shall  one  be  called).  In  that  day, 
according  to  prophetic  usage,  is  a  somewhat  indefinite  expression,  and  may 
either  mean  during  or  after  the  distresses  just  described.  Canaan  is  here 
put  for  the  land  of  Canaan  (as  in  Exod.  xv.  15),  and  the  language  of  Canaan 
for  the  Hebrew  language,  not  because  it  was  the  language  of  the  old  Canaan- 
ites,  but  because  it  was  spoken  in  the  land  which  they  once  occupied. 
Some  of  the  later  writers  understand  what  is  here  said,  strictly  as  denoting 
an  actual  prevalence  of  the  Hebrew  language,  while  others  take  it  as  a 
strong  expression  for  such  intimate  union,  social,  commercial,  and  political, 
as  would  seem  to  imply  a  community  of  language.  The  older  writers  very 
generally  apply  the  terms  to  religious  union  and  communion.  Cahin  ex- 
plains lip  or  language  as  a  figure  for  confession  or  profession,  and  the  speak- 
ing of  the  language  of  Canaan  for  a  public  profession  of  the  true  religion. 
Vitringa  gains  the  same  end  by  a  reference  to  the  phrase  spealcing  the  saine 
things,  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  signify  conformity  of  feeling  and 
opinion.  (See  1  Cor.  i.  10.)  He  also  admits  the  possibihty  of  allusion  to 
the  dialect  of  saints  or  believers,  as  distinguished  from  that  of  the  world, 
and  to  the  study  of  the  literal  Hebrew  as  promoted  by  the  spread  of  the 
true  religion.  Cocceius  and  some  others  undersland  directly  by  the  use  of 
the  language  of  Canaan,  the  study  of  the  Bible,  or  rather  the  reception  and 
promulgation  of  its  doctrines.  The  simplest  interpretation  of  the  phrase 
is,  that  in  itself  it  denotes  intimate  intercourse  and  union  generally,  but 
that  the  idea  of  religious  unity  is  here  suggested  by  the  context,  and  espe- 
cially by  the  following  clause.  Many  interpreters  appear  to  regard  the 
phrases  sivearing  by  and  swearing  to  as  pei'fectly  synonymous.  The  former 
act  does  certainly  imply  the  recognition  of  the  deity  by  whom  one  swears, 
especially  if  oaths  be  regarded  as  they  are  in  Scripture  as  solemn  acts  of 
religious  worship.  But  the  phrase  swearing  to  conveys  the  additional  idea 
of  doing  homage,  and  acknowledging  a  sovereign  by  swearing  fealty  or 
allegiance  to  him.  This  is  the  only  meaning  that  the  words  can  bear  in 
2  Chron.  xv.  14,  and  in  Isa.  xlv.  23  the  two  phrases  seem  to  be  very  clearly 
distinguished.  The  distinction  intended  in  Zeph,  i.  5,  is  not  so  clear. 
The  act  of  thus  professing  the  true  faith  and  submitting  to  the  true  God  is 
ascribed  in  the  verse  before  us  to  five  towns  or  cities.  Of  this  phrase  there 
are  three  distinct  interpretations.  Gesenius,  Ewald,  Ivnobel,  and  others, 
understand  five  as  a  round  or  indefinite  number,  meaning  few  or  man}',  and 
derived  either  from  Egyptian  usage  (Gen.  xliii.  84 ;  xlv.  22  ;  xhdi.  2),  or 
from  the  practice  of  counting  on  the  fingers.  Thus  understood,  the  sense 
is  simply  that  a  number  of  cities  shall  do  so  and  so.  Another  class  of 
\\Titcrs  understand  the  words  strictly  as  denoting  five,  and  neither  more 
nor  less.     The  five  cities  meant  are  supposed  by  Vitringa  to  be  HeliopoHs, 


Ver.  18.]  ISAIAH  XIX.  357 

Memphis,  Sais,  Bubastis,  Alexandria;  by  Clericus,  Migdol,  Tahpanhes, 
Memphis,  HeliopoHs,  and  one  in  Pathros,  probaLly  No-'ammon  or  Diospolis  ; 
by  Hitzig  the  same,  except  the  last,  for  which  he  substitutes  Leontopolis  ; 
by  Henjewerk,  the  five  cities  of  the  Philistines,  which  he  supposes  to  be 
here  considered  as  belonging  to  Egypt.  Among  the  five  cities  perhaps 
refeiTed  to,  Barnes  includes  Pathros  or  Thebais,  which  was  not  a  city  at 
all.  A  third  interpretation  understands  the  words  as  expressive  not  of 
absolute  number  but  proportion ;  five  out  of  the  twenty  thousand  cities 
which  Herodotus  says  Egypt  contained  ;  or  out  of  the  one  thousand  which 
Calvin  thinks  a  more  reasonable  estimate  ;  or  five  out  of  ten,  i.  e.  one  half ; 
or  five  out  of  six,  which  is  Calvin's  own  interpretation.  The  objection  to 
the  first  or  indefinite  construction  is  the  want  of  any  clear  example  of  this 
number  being  used  in  that  way  without  something  in  the  context  to  aiford 
a  standard  of  comparison.  (See  Lev.  xxvi.  8,  1  Cor.  xiv.  19.)  The  objec- 
tion to  the  second  or  absolute  construction  is  the  impossibility  of  fixing 
certainly  what  five  are  meant,  or  of  tracing  the  fulfilment  of  so  definite  a 
prophecy,  or  even  of  ascertaining  from  the  context  any  reason  why  just  five 
should  be  distinguished  in  this  manner.  Of  the  third  class  or  relative  con- 
structions, that  of  Calvin  is  to  be  preferred,  because  the  others  arbitrarily 
assume  a  standard  of  comparison  (twent}'  thousand,  ten  thousand,  ten,  &c.), 
whereas  this  hj'pothesis  finds  it  in  the  verse  itself,  Jice  professing  the  true 
religion  to  one  rejecting  it.  Most  of  the  other  interpretations  understand 
the  one  to  be  included  in  the  five,  as  if  he  had  said  cue  of  them.  As  ^1^^^ 
admits  either  of  these  senses,  or  rather  applications,  the  question  must  de- 
pend upon  the  meaning  given  to  the  rest  of  the  clause.  Even  on  Calvin's 
hj'pothesis,  however,  the  proportion  indicated  need  not  be  taken  with  mathe- 
matical precision.  "What  appears  to  be  meant  is  that  five- sixths,  i.  e.  a 
very  large  proportion,  shall  profess  the  true  religion,  while  the  remaining 
sixth  persists  in  unbelief.  It  shall  he  said  to  one,  i.  e.  one  shall  be  addressed 
as  follows,  or  called  by  the  following  name.  This  periphrasis  is  common 
in  Isaiah,  but  is  never  applied,  as  Gesenius  observes,  to  the  actual  appella- 
tion, but  always  to  a  description  or  symbolical  title  (See  Isa.  iv.  3,  Ixi.  6, 
Ixii.  4.)  This  may  be  urged  as  an  argument  against  the  explanation  of  O^nO 
as  a  proper  name.  The  Hebrew  form  is  retained  in  the  Complutensiau  text 
of  the  Septuagint  ('A;);^ss£s)  by  Theodotion  and  Aquila  ('Aosg),  by  the  Peshito 
(»CD5ai),  and  by  Luther  (Irheres).  Sixteeen  manuscripts  and  several  edi- 
tions read  D"inn,  and  this  is  adopted  as  the  true  text  b}'  most  of  the  modem 
WTiters.  It  is  also  supposed  to  be  confirmed  by  the  Greek  form  '  Ayjoig 
above  quoted.  Jerome  compares  it  with  ^X,  a  potsherd,  and  refers  to  the 
town  which  the  Greeks  called 'Offr^ax/i'j]  [i.e.  earthen).  Others  suppose 
an  allusion  to  Tahpanhes,  the  brick-kilns  of  which  are  mentioned,  Jer.  xliii.  9. 
Gesenius,  in  his  Commentary,  derives  the  meaning  of  the  name  from  the 

Arabic  ij**f>-  and  renders  it  fMa'^ra«ce  (Errettung).  Ewald,  with  reference 
to  the  same  root,  renders  it  fortune  or  happiness  (Gliickstadt).  But  most 
of  those  who  adopt  this  reading  give  to  D^O  the  sense  of  sun,  which  it  has 
in  several  places  (Judges  viii.  13,  xiv.  18  ;  Job  ix.  7),  and  regard  the  wh^le 
phrase  as  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  Bcilishcmesh  (dwelling  of  the  sun),  and 
the  Greek  HeliopoUs  (city  of  the  sun),  the  name  of  a  famous  town  of  Lower 
Eg3^pt,  in  the  Heliopolitan  Nome,  so  called  fi'om  it.  In  this  nome,  Onias, 
a  fugitive  priest  from  Palestine,  about  150  years  before  Christ,  prevailed 
upon  Ptolemy  Philometor  to  erect  a  temple  for  the  Jews  of  EgV'pt,  an  event 
which  some  suppose  to  be  predicted  here.     The  exact  site  of  this  temple. 


858  ISAIAH  XIX.  [Yer.  18. 

although  in  the  nome  just  mentioned,  was  at  LeuntupoUs  (or  city  of  the 
lion),  and  this  name  also  has  been  found  by  some  interpreters  in  the  pre- 
diction.    J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Dathe,  following  a  suggestion  made  by  Ikcn, 

identify  the  common  reading  D"in  with  the  Arabic  (j^j^.  But  this  has 
been  she\\'n  by  later  writers  to  be  merely  a  poetical  epithet  of  the  Hon, 
denoting  its  voracity.  Rosenmuller,  in  his  larger  Scholia,  agi'ees  with  Hezel 
in  explaining  Din  from  the  Syriac  analogy  as  signifying  safety  or  salvation. 
But  Gesenius  has  shewn  that  there  is  no  such  SjTiac  word,  and  that  the 
Syriac  writers  quoted  merely  give  conjectural  explanations  of  the  Hebrew 
word  before  us.  Rosenmiillcr,  therefore,  in  the  Compendium  of  his  Scholia, 
adopts  Gescnius's  interpretation  given  above,  while  Gesenius  himself,  in 
his  Thesaurus,  adopts  that  of  Yitringa  and  the  Yulgate  (civitas  solis).  This 
is  also  given  by  Hitzig,  who  identifies  DX  the  sun  with  Dnn,  a  scab  (Deut. 
xxviii.  27),  the  disk  of  the  former  being  so  called  on  account  of  its  scratched, 
scraped,  or  smooth  appearance,  an  etymological  deduction  of  which  Umbreit 
gravely  signifies  his  approbation.  All  the  interpretations  which  have  now 
been  mentioned  either  depart  from  the  common  text,  or  explain  it  by  some 
forced  or  foreign  analogy.  If,  however,  we  proceed  upon  the  only  safe 
principle  of  adhering  to  the  common  text  and  to  Hebrew  usage,  without  the 
strongest  reasons  for  abandoning  either  or  both,  no  explanation  of  the  name 
can  be  so  satisfactory  as  that  given  by  Calvin  (civitas  desolationis)  and  the 
English  Yersion  (city  of  destruction).  It  is  very  remarkable  that  both  the 
readings  (Din  and  Dirij  appear  to  be  combined  in  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase: 
"the  city  of  Bethsbemesh  (/.  <\  Heliopolis),  which  is  to  be  destroyed."  This 
would  seem  to  imply  that  the  text  or  the  meaning  of  the  word  was  already 
doubtful  and  disputed  at  the  date  of  that  old  Yersion.  It  has  been  objected 
_^  to  the  common  reading  and  the  sense  just  put  upon  it,  that  a  threatening  of 
destruction  would  here  be  out  of  place.  But  on  Calvin's  hypothesis,  there 
is  a  promise  of  salvation  to  five-sixths.  It  is  also  a  favourite  idea  with  some 
writers,  that  the  text  was  corrupted  by  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  in  order  to 
convert  what  seemed  at  least  to  be  an  explicit  prediction  of  the  temple  of 
Onias  into  a  threatening  of  its  destruction.  To  the  same  som-ce  some 
ascribe  the  reading  Dinn  which  is  found  in  a  few  manuscripts.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  common  text  of  the  Septuagint  Yersion  has  aahU  (pIVH), 
which  is  supposed  to  have  been  introduced  (from  chap.  i.  2G)  by  the 
Egyptian  Jews  in  order  to  put  honour  on  their  temple.  Even  this,  how- 
ever, is  pressed  into  the  service  of  other  hypotheses  by  Iken,  who  identifies 
uGib'iy.  with  an  Arabic  word  used  by  the  poets  in  describing  the  appearance 
of  a  lion,  and  by  Le  Moyne,  who  argues  from  Mai.  iii.  20,  that  p1^*  and 
npTV  were  applied  to  the  sun.  Thus  the  same  blunder  of  the  Seventy  is 
made  to  prove  that  the  Hebrew  word  means  Heliopolis  and  Leontopolis. 
Hitzig,  as  we  have  seen  already,  looks  upon  this  whole  passage  from  the 
sixteenth  verse  as  a  fabrication  of  Onias,  intended  to  facilitate  the  rearing 
of  his  temple.  But  in  that  case  he  would  surely  have  made  it  more  explicit, 
or  at  least  have  prevented  its  conversion  into  an  anathema  against  himself. 
It  is  not  even  tnie  that  he  interpreted  this  clause  as  pointing  out  the  place 
for  the  erection,  as  alleged  by  Lowth  and  others  after  him.  Josephus 
merely  says  that  ho  appealed  to  the  prediction  of  an  altar  to  Jehovah  in  the 
land  of  Egypt,  which  would  hardly  have  contented  him  if  he  had  understood 
the  verse  before  us  as  expressly  naming  either  Heliopolis  or  Leontopolis. 
These  facts,  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  usage  of  ^.  "ipN.I  already 
\   stated,  make  it  altogether  probable  that  D!}nn  'T'y  is  not  a  proper  name,  but 


Vee.  19.]  ISAIAH  XIX.  359 

a  descriptive  and  prophetic  title,  meaning  (in  accordance  with  the  constant  j 
usage  of  the  verb  D^H)  the  city  of  destruction.  Kimchi,  who  puts  this  sense 
upon  the  words,  but  is  puzzled  by  the  threatening  against  one  of  the  five 
towns,  as  he  supposes  it  to  be,  absurdly  makes  the  words  to  mean  that  the 
five  cities  would  be  so  devoted  to  the  true  religion  that  if  either  of  them 
should  apostatise  the  others  would  destroy  it.  Scarcely  more  natural  is  the 
explanation  of  the  words  by  Junius  and  Tremellius,  as  meaning  a  city  algiDst 
destroyed^  or  saved  from  destruction.  Schmidius  more  ingeniously  evades 
the  difficulty  by  taking  0')\}  in  an  active  sense,  a  city  of  destruction,  i.e.  to  -- 
its  enemies  or  those  of  the  true  religion.  Both  the  hypotheses  last  men- 
tioned give  to  nn^  the  distributive  sense  of  each  or  every  one,  which  it 
sometimes  derives  from  repetition  or  context.  (See  Ezek.  i.  6).  Hende- 
werk,  who  supposes  the  five  towns  of  the  Philistines  to  be  meant,  under- 
stands this  as  a  prophecy  that  one  of  them  (Ashdod)  should  be  destroyed, 
but  afterwards  rebuilt,  with  an  allusion  to  the  derivation  of  the  name  from 
^^^,  to  destroy.  But  of  all  the  explanations  of  the  common  text,  the 
simplest  is  the  one  proposed  by  Calvin,  which  supposes  the  whole  verse  to 
mean  that  for  one  town  which  shall  perish  in  its  unbelief,  five  shall  profess 
the  true  faith  and  swear  fealty  to  Jehovah.  The  simplicity  of  this  inter- 
pretation, and  its  strict  agreement  with  a  general  tenor  of  the  passage  as  a 
prophetic  picture  of  great  changes  in  the  State  of  Egypt,  serve  at  the  same 
time  to  commend  the  common  reading  as  the  true  one.  By  the  five  cities  : 
Cocceius  understands  the  five  States  in  which  the  Reformation  was  per-  v- 
manently  established  (Great  Britain,  Denmark,  Sweden,  Holland,  and 
northern  Germam'),  and  by  desolation  or  destruction  what  they  subsequently  I 
sufi'ered  by  war  and  otherwise  from  the  popish  powers. 

19.  In  that  day  there  shall  he  an  altar  to  Jehovah  in  the  midst  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  and  a  pillar  at  (or  near)  its  border  to  Jehovah.  It  has  been  dis- 
puted whether  we  are  here  to  understand  an  altar  for  sacrifice,  or  an  altar 
to  serve  as  a  eiemorial  (Josh.  xxii.  26,  27).  It  has  also  been  disputed 
whether  the  prohibition  of  altars  and  consecrated  pillars  (Lev.  xxvi.  1 ; 
Deut.  xii.  5,  xvi.  22)  was  applicable  only  to  the  Jews  or  to  Palestine,  leav- 
ing foreign  Jews  or  proselytes  at  liberty  to  rear  these  sacred  structures  as 
the  Patriarchs  did  of  old  (Gen.  xxviii.  18,  xxxv.  14).  The  necessity  of 
answering  these  questions  is  removed  by  a  just  view  of  the  passage,  as  pre- 
dicting the  prevalence  of  the  true  religion  and  the  practice  of  its  rites,  in  ^ 
language  borrowed  from  the  Mosaic  or  rather  from  the  patriarchal  institu- 
tions. As  we  might  now  speak  of  a  missionary  pitching  his  tent  at  Hebron 
or  at  Shechem,  without  intending  to  describe  the  precise  form  of  his  habita- 
tion, so  the  Prophet  represents  the  converts  to  be  the  true  faith  as  erecting 
an  altar  and  a  pillar  to  the  Lord  in  Egypt,  as  Abraham  and  Jacob  did  of 
old  in  Canaan,  A  still  more  exact  illustration  is  afforded  by  the  frequent 
use  among  ourselves  of  the  word  altar  to  denote  the  practice  of  devotion, 
especially  in  families.  There  is  a  double  propriety  and  beauty  in  the  use 
of  the  word  n3->*0,  because  while  it  instantly  recalls  to  mind  the  patriarchal  - 
practice,  it  is  at  the  same  time  finely  descriptive  of  the  obelisk,  an  object  so 
characteristic  of  Egypt  that  it  may  bo  regarded  as  its  emblem.  Both  the 
obelisk  and  the  patriarchal  pillar,  being  never  in  the  human  form,  are  to  be 
carefully  distinguished  from  statues  or  images,  although  the  latter  word  is 
sometimes  used  to  represent  the  Hebrew  one  in  the  English  Version  (see 
2  Kings  iii.  2,  x.  26  ;  Micah  v.  13).  Those  explanations  of  the  verse 
which  suppose  the  altar  and  the  pillar,  or  the  centre  and  the  border  of  the 
land,  to  be  contrasted,  are  equally  at  variance  with  good  taste  and  the  usage 


360  ISAIAH  XIX.  L^er.  20. 

of  the  langnage,  which  continually  separates  in  parallel  clauses,  words 
and  things  which  the  reader  is  expected  to  combine.  See  an  example  of 
this  usage  in  the  sixth  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter.  As  the  wintering  of 
the  beasts  and  the  summering  of  the  birds  are  there  intended  to  denote  the 
presence  of  both  beasts  and  birds  throughout  the  year,  so  here  the  altur  in 
the  midst  of  the  land,  and  the  pillar  at  its  border,  denote  altars  and  pillars 
through  its  whole  extent.  This  is  much  more  natural  than  Ewald's  suppo- 
sition that  the  words  are  expressive  of  a  gradual  progress  or  extension  of 
the  truth. 

20.  And  it  shall  be/or  a  sign  and/or  a  testimony  to  Jehovah  of  hosts  in 
the  land  of  Egypt,  that  they  shall  cry  to  Jehovah  from  the  presence  of  oppres- 
sors, and  he  will  send  them  a  deliverer  and  a  mighty  one,  and  save  them. 
The  older  writers  for  the  most  part  construe  i^\r})  with  what  goes  before : 
"  and  it  (or  they)  shall  be,"  &c.  In  that  case  we  must  either  suppose  an 
enallage  of  gender  (so  as  to  make  n3>'0  the  subject  of  the  verb),  or  an 
enaUage  of  number  (so  as  to  construe  it  with  both  the  nouns),  or  else 
refer  it  to  the  remoter  antecedent  najp.  Any  of  these  constructions  would 
be  admissible  if  absolutely  necessary ;  but  in  the  case  before  us  they  are  all 
superseded  by  a  simpler  one  now  commonly  adopted.  This  refers  n^^H)  not 
at  all  to  what  precedes  but  to  what  follows,  taking  "'3  in  its  proper  sense  of 
Sri,  that.  "  This  shall  be  a  sign  and  a  witness  to  {i.e.  with  respect  to,  in 
behalf  of)  Jehovah  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  viz.  tbat  when  they  cry,"  Sec. 
He  will  afford  a  providential  testimony  in  behalf  of  his  own  being,  pre- 
sence, and  supremacy,  by  saving  those  who  cry  to  him.  Those  who  refer 
njH)  to  what  goes  before,  either  take  the  other  verbs  in  the  past  tense  (a 
sign  and  a  testimony  that  they  cried),  which  is  entirely  arbitrary,  or  give 
to  ^3  its  usual  sense  oi  for,  lecause  (for  they  shall  cry),  in  which  case  the 
connection  is  not  obvious  between  their  crying  and  the  altar's  being  a 
sign  and  witness  for  Jehovah.  Even  then,  however,  we  may  understand 
the  Prophet  to  mean  that  when  they  cry  at  the  altar  of  Jehovah,  he  will 
answer  and  deliver  them,  and  thus  the  altar  will  bear  witness  to  him.  But 
as  nothing  is  said  of  crying  at  the  altar,  the  other  construction  is  to  be 
preferred,  which  makes  the  hearing  of  their  prayers,  and  their  deliverance 
from  suffering,  the  sign  and  witness  in  behalf  of  Jehovah.  3^  may  be 
either  an  adjective  meaning  great,  or  the  participle  of  ^^'i,  to  strive,  espe- 
cially at  law,  and  then  to  plead  the  cause  or  take  the  part  of  any  one,  the 
participle  of  which  might  well  be  used  to  signify  an  advocate,  patron,  or 
defender.  Calvin  and  others,  adopting  the  former  explanation  of  the  word 
(salvatorem  et  principem),  apply  it  to  Christ.  Vitringa,  laying  stress  upon 
the  word  as  meaning  great,  regards  it  as  a  proof  that  the  deliverer  here 
mentioned  was  Alexander  the  Great,  or  his  Egyptian  successor  Ptolemy, 
also  called  the  Great,  and,  by  a  singular  coincidence,  Soter  or  the  Saviour. 
The  whole  force  of  this  ingenious  combination  lies  in  the  explanation  of  3T 
as  an  adjective.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  consistently  maintained  by  those 
who  adopt  the  other  supposition,  as  Henderson  does.  Barnes  also  weakens 
the  argument  in  favom-  of  Vitringa's  exposition  by  exchanging  great  for 
powerful.  The  other  explanation  of  3T  as  a  participle  is  found  in  all  the 
ancient  versions,  and  is  adopted  by  most  modem  writers.  It  is  also 
favoured  by  the  fact  that  the  adjective  is  usually  written  3T  when  not  in  pause, 
although  some  cases  of  the  other  pointing  do  occur  {e.g.  Gen.  xxxvi.  7  ; 
Joshua  xi.  4),  and  Hitzig  thinks  the  form  here  sufficiently  accounted  for 
by  the  accompanying  accent.  As  to  the  application  of  the  term  in  either 
case,  besides  that  adopted  by  Vitringa  and  others,  may  be  mentioned  the 


Ver.  21.]  ISAIAH  XIX.  361 

rabbinical  opinion  that  it  means  the  angel  who  destroyed  Sennacherib's 
army,  and  the  opinion  of  some  modern  wTiters  that  it  denotes  Psammetichus. 
A  name,  which  admits  of  being  plausibly  applied  to  things  so  far  apart  and 
unlike,  may  safely  be  regarded  as  generic  in  its  import.  Even  if  the  lan- 
guage of  this  verse  by  itself  might  seem  to  point  to  a  particular  deliverer, 
the  comprehensive  language  of  the  context  would  forbid  its  reference  to  any 
such  exclusively.  If,  as  we  have  seen  reason  to  believe,  the  chapter  is  a 
prophecy,  not  of  a  single  event,  but  of  a  great  progressive  change  to  be 
wrought  in  the  condition  of  Egypt  by  the  introduction  of  the  true  religion, 
the  promise  of  the  verse  before  us  must  be,  that  when  they  cried  God  would 
send  them  a  deliverer,  a  promise  verified  not  once  but  often,  not  by  Ptolemy 
or  Alexander  only,  but  by  others,  and  in  the  highest  sense  by  Christ  him- 
self. The  assertion,  that  the  meaning  of  the  prophecy  was  exhausted  by 
events  before  the  advent,  is  as  easily  contradicted  as  advanced.  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  the  rise  of  Alexander's  power  was  contemporaneous  with  a  great 
increase  of  Jewish  population  and  Jewish  influence  in  Egypt,  and  also  with 
a  great  improvement  in  the  social  and  political  condition  of  the  people. 
This  was  still  more  remarkably  the  case  when  Christianity  was  introduced, 
and  who  shall  say  what  is  yet  to  be  witnessed  and  experienced  in  Egypt 
under  the  influence  of  the  same  Gospel  ?  In  the  language  of  this  verse 
there  is  an  obvious  allusion  to  the  frequent  statement  in  the  book  of  Judges, 
that  the  people  cried  to  God,  and  he  raised  them  up  deliverers  who  saved 
them  from  their  oppressors  (Judges  ii.  16,  iii.  9,  &c.).  Cocceius  applies 
these  terms  to  the  various  deliverers  who  were  raised  up  to  free  the 
Keformed  Church  from  its  enemies. 

21.  And  Jehovah  shall  he  known  to  Egypt,  and  Egypt  (or  the  Egyptians) 
shall  knoio  Jehovah  in  that  day,  and  shall  serve  [with)  sacrifice  and  offering, 
and  shall  voto  a  vow  to  Jehovah,  and  perform  it.     This  is  not  the  predic- 
tion of  a  new  event,  but  a  repetition  in  another  form  of  the  preceding 
promise.     The  first  clause  may  be  understood  as  containing  an  emphatic 
repetition,  orVtlii  may  be  taken  in  a  reflexive  sense  as  meaning  he  shall 
make  himself  known,  in  which  case  each  of  the  parties  is  the  subject  of  an 
active  verb.     The  second  clause  is  still  but  another  variation  of  the  same 
idea.     What  is  first  described  as  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  is  after- 
wards represented  as  his  service,  the  expressions  being  borrowed  from  the 
ancient  ritual.     If  the  last  clause  be  literally  understood,  we  must  either 
regard  it  as  an  unfounded  expectation  of  the  Prophet  which  was  never  ful- 
filled, or  suppose  that  it  relates  to  an  express  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses, 
or  assume  that  the  ancient  rites  and  forms  are  hereafter  to  be  re-established. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  figurative  explanation  is  in  perfect  agreement  with 
the  usage  of  both  testaments,  and  with  the  tenor  of  the  prophecy  itself. 
Bloodj'  and  unbloody  sacrifice  is  here  combined   with  vows,  in  order  to 
express  the  totality  of  ritual  services  as  a  figure  for  those  of  a  more  spiri- 
tual nature.     The  express  mention  of  the  Egyptians  themselves  as  worship- 
ping Jehovah,  shews  that  they  are  also  meant  in  the  preceding  verse,  and 
not,  as  Hitzig  imagines,  the  Jews  resident  in  Egypt,  whose  example  and 
experience  of  God's  favour  were  to  be  the  means  of  bringing  those  around 
them  to  the  knowledge  and  reception  of  the  truth.     Gesenius   explains 
•I'l^J^  to  be  a  synonyme  of  -I^J^,  and  makes  it  govern  the  noun  directly  in 
the  sense  of  performing  or  offering  sacrifice,  &c.     Hitzig  adopts  the  same 
construction,  and  moreover  makes  this  use  of  1?^  symptomatic  of  a  later 
writer.     Hendewerk  justly  condemns  this  reasoning  as  exceedingly  unfair, 
when  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term  gives  a  perfectly  good  sense,  and 


862  ISAIAH  XIX.  [Ver.  22,  23. 

the  absolute  use  of  I^V  in  the  sense  of  serving  God  occurs  elsewhere  (Job 
xxxvi.  11),  and  the  same  ellipsis  in  this  very  chapter  (ver.  23). 

22.  And  Jehovah  shall  smite  Kgypt  [or  the  Er/i/ptians),  smiting  and 
healing,  and  theg  shall  return  unto  Jehovah,  and  he  shall  he  entreated 
of  thetn,  and  shall  heal  them.  Here  again  the  second  clause  contains  no 
advance  upon  the  first,  and  the  whole  verse  no  advance  upon  the  foregoing 
context,  but  an  iteration  of  the  same  idea  in  another  form.  This  verse  maj' 
indeed  be  regarded  as  a  recapitulation  of  the  whole  preceding  prophecy, 
consisting  as  it  does  of  an  extended  threatening  (vers.  1-17),  followed  by  an 
ample  promise  (vers.  18-21).  As  if  he  had  said,  Thus  will  God  smite  Egj^^t 
and  then  heal  it.  That  great  heathen  power,  with  respect  to  which  the 
Jews  so  often  sinned  both  by  undue  confidence  and  undue  dread,  was  to  be 
broken  and  reduced  :  but  in  exchange  for  this  political  decline,  and  partly 
as  a  consequence  of  it,  the  Egyptians  should  experience  benefits  far  greater 
than  they  ever  before  knew.  Thus  would  Jehovah  S7nite  and  heal,  or  smite 
but  so  as  afterwards  to  heal,  vrhich  seems  to  be  the  force  of  the  reduplicated 
verb.  (See  Ewald,  §  540.)  The  meaning  is  not  simply  that  the  stroke 
should  be  followed  by  healing,  nor  is  it  simply  that  the  stroke  should  itself 
possess  a  healing  virtue  ;  but  both  ideas  seem  to  be  included.  Returning 
to  Jehovah  is  a  common  figure  for  repentance  and  conversion,  even  in  refer- 
ence to  the  heathen.     (See  Psalm  xxii.  28.) 

23.  /n  that  day  there  shall  he  a  liighioay  from  Eyyfd  to  Assyria,  and 
Assyria  shall  come  into  Egypt  and  Egyx>t  into  Assyria,  and  Egypt  (or 
the  Egyjitians)  thall  serve  %oith  Assyria.  No  translation  w'ill  convey 
the  precise  form  of  the  original,  in  which  the  ancestral  names  DTiVP  and 
"VlK^N  are  put  not  only  for  their  descendants,  but  for  the  countries  which  they 
occupied.  Thus  in  one  clause  we  read  of  coming  into  D''!>y'?,  while  in  the 
next  the  same  name  is  construed  with  a  plural  verb.  No  one,  it  is  probable, 
has  ever  yet  maintained  that  a  road  was  literally  opened  between  Egypt 
and  Assyria,  or  that  Isaiah  expected  it.  All  classes  of  interpreter's  agree 
that  the  opening  of  the  highway  is  a  figure  for  easy,  free,  and^utimate  com- 
municaticm.  This  unanimous  admission  of  a  metaphor  in  tliis  place  not  only 
shews  that  the  same  mode  of  interpretation  is  admissible  in  the  other  parts  of 
the  same  prophecy,  but  makes  it  highly  probable  that  what  is  said  of  altars 
and  saciificesis  to  be  likewise  so  understood.  The  Chaldee  Paraphrast  alone 
seems  to  have  understood  the  second  clause  as  having  reference  to  hostile 
communication.  Some  understand  it  as  relating  only  to  commercial  inter- 
course ;  others  confine  it  to  religious  union.  But  the  same  thing  is  true  here 
and  in  ver.  18,  that  while  the  language  itself  denotes  intimate  connection  and 
free  intercourse  in  general,  the  context  renders  the  idea  of  spiritual  union 
prominent.  The  last  clause  admits  of  two  constructions,  one  of  >vhich 
regards  HK  as  the  objective  particle,  and  understands  the  clause  to  mean  that 
the  Egyptians  shall  serve  the  Assyrians:  the  other  makes  ON  a  preposition, 
and  explains  the  clause  to  mean  that  the  Egyptians  shall  serve  (God)  nith 
the  Assyrians.  In  favour  of  the  first  is  the  constant  usage  of  "^^V  with  riX 
(Gen.  xiv.  4,  xxvii.  40,  xxxi.  6;  Exod.  xiv.  12,  Sec),  and  the  unanimous 
agreement  of  the  ancient  versions.  But  the  sense  thus  yielded  is  at  vari- 
ance with  the  context,  what  precedes  and  follows  being  clearly  expressive  of 
a  union  so  complete  and  equal  as  to  exclude  the  idea  of  subjection  or 
superiority.  Some  have  attempted  to  evade  this  difficulty  by  attachiug  to 
13y  the  sense  of  serving  by  benevolence  (Gal.  v.  13),  or  of  simply  treating 
with  respect  or  reverence.  But  even  if  this  explanation  of  the  word  were 
justified  by  usage,  why  should  this  diflcrence  be  confined  to  one  party 


Vee.  24,  25.]  ISAIAH  XIX.  SC3 

instead  of  being  mutual,  especially  when  what  precedes  and  follows  so  em- 
phatically expresses  the  idea  of  reciprocity  ?  In  favour  of  the  other  con- 
struction is  the  constant  use  of  t^J?  to  denote  the  service  of  Jehovah,  and  * 
the  omission  of  the  divine  name  after  it,  not  only  in  Job  xxxvi.  11,  but  m 
ver.  21  of  this  very  chapter.  For  although  the  latter  place  admits,  as  we  have 
seen,  of  two  interpretations,  the  very  fact  that  the  elliptical  construction  is 
appropriate  in  both,  and  that  no  other  sense  but  that  of  serving  God  is  equally 
appropriate  to  both,  would  seem  to  be  decisive  in  favour  of  this  sense  and 
this  construction  as  the  true  one.  Some  understand  the  clause  to  mean 
that  the  Egyptians  should  serve  with  the  Assyrians  in  the  same  army, 
under  the  same  leader,  viz.,  Alexander  the  great  or  his  successors.  But 
12V  is  nowhere  absolutely  used,  if  at  all,  in  this  modern  military  sense, 
which  is  moreover  wholly  inadmissible  in  ver.  21.  The  sense  of  serving 
God  together  is  adopted  by  Luther  and  all  the  later  German  ^^Titers  except 
Hitzig  who  agrees  with  Cocceius  and  the  ancient  versions.  Some  remove 
the  ambiguity  by  supplying  the  ellipsis,  others  by  giving  a  specific  meaning 
to  the  verb,  as  Lowth  (worship),  and  Ewald  (huldigen). 

24.  In  that  day  shall  Israel  be  a  third  with  respect  to  Egypt  and 
Assyria,  a  blessing  in  the  midst  of  the  earth.  The  meanmg  obviously  is 
that  Israel  should  be  one  of  three,  or  a  party  to  a  triple  union.  n*^'''7K'  there- 
fore does  not  agree  with  7^^^'-'  considered  as  a  feminine  noun,  because  in- 
tended to  denote  not  the  country  but  the  nation.  This  explanation,  the  one 
suggested  by  Gesenius,  is  directly  contrary  to  usage,  which  makes  countries 
feminine,  and  nations  masculine,  as  stated  by  Gesenius  himself  in  his  com- 
ment on  the  next  verse.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  suppose  a  reference  to  '"i^V. 
or  any  other  noun  understood.  "  As  the  fractional  numerals  are  all  abstract 
nouns,  the  feminine  form  of  the  ordinals  is  employed  exclusively  for  their 
representation."  (Nordheimer,  §  627.  Compare  Gesenius,  ^  96.)  The 
word  therefore  means  a  third  part,  or  one  equal  part  out  of  three.  The  idea 
meant  to  be  conveyed,  however,  is  not,  as  Cocceius  supposes,  merely  that 
of  equality  in  magnitude  or  power,  but  also  that  of  intimate  conjunction,  as 
in  the  preceding  verse.  Blessing  is  here  used  in  a  comprehensive  sense,  as 
denoting  at  the  same  time  a  source  of  blessing,  a  means  of  blessing,  and  an 
object  to  be  blessed.  Luther  supplies  a  preposition  before  it  and  a  relative 
after  it  (though  the  blessing  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  earth).  Knobel 
simply  supplies  the  verb  of  existence  (blessing  shall  be  in  the  midst,  &c.). 
The  simplest  construction  is  to  put  it  in  apposition  with  ?X"lti'''  or  H^CJ'vK', 
a  blessing  in  th/  midst  of  the  earth,  which  is  equivalent  to  saying,  as  a 
blessing,  or  (as  Ewald  has  it)  for  a  blessing  in  the  midst  of  the  earth.  The 
restricted  sense  of  land,  whether  understood  to  mean  the  land  of  Israel  or 
the  land  of  the  three  united  powers,  now  reckoned  as  one,  is  not  only  arbi- 
traiT,  /.  e.  assumed  without  necessity,  but  gi'eatly  impau-s  the  strength  of 
the  expressions. 

25.  Which  Jehovah  of  hosts  has  blessed  (or  with  ivhich  Jehovah  of  hosts 
has  blessed  it)  saying,  Blessed  be  my  people  Egypt,  and  the  ivork  of  my 
hands  Assyria ,  and  my  heritage  (or  pecuhar  people)  Israel.  The  perfect 
union  of  the  thi-ee  gi-eat  powers  in  the  service  of  God  and  the  enjojTnent  of 
his  favour  is  now  expressed  by  a  solemn  benediction  on  the  three,  in  which 
language  commonly  applied  to  Israel  exclusively  is  extended  to  Egypt  and 
Ass}Tia.  The  force  of  the  expressions  would  be  much  enhanced  by  the 
habitual  associations  of  a  Jewish  reader.  It  arises  very  much  from  the 
surprise  excited  by  the  unexpected  termination  of  the  clauses.     Instead  of 


864  ISAIAH  XIX.  [Ver.  25. 

Blessed  he  mij  people  Israel,  the  formula  is  blessed  he  my  people  Et/i/pt.  That 
the  work  of  nuj  IkvuIs  does  not  merely  mean  my  creature,  or  a  creatiu'e 
perfectly  at  my  disposal,  but  my  creature  in  a  special  and  a  spiritual  sense, 
the  same  in  which  God  is  said  to  be  the  maker  or  founder  of  Israel  (Deut. 
xxxii.  G ;  Isa  xliii.  6,  7),  is  evident  from  this  consideration,  that  the  clause 
would  otherwise  say  nothing  peculiar  or  distinctive  of  Assyria,  as  those 
before  and  after  it  do  of  Eg^'pt  and  Israel.  Some  writers  understand  the 
laL-^t  clause  as  still  making  a  distinction  in  favour  of  Israel,  as  if  he  had 
said,  Egypt  is  indeed  my  people  and  Assyria  my  handiwork,  but  Israel 
after  all  and  alone  is  my  inheritance.  The  objections  to  this  inteii^retation 
are,  first,  that  it  is  wholly  arbitrary;  that  is,  it  assumes  a  peculiar  emphasis 
in  the  word  inheritance  which  neither  usage  nor  the  context  warrants  ;  and 
secondly,  that  it  contradicts  or  makes  unmeaning  the  varied  and  reiterated 
forms  of  speech  by  which  the  Prophet  had  before  expressed  the  ideas  of 
equality  and  union.  Where  bis  very  object  seems  to  be  to  represent  the 
three  united  powers  as  absolutely  one  in  privilege,  it  cannot  be  supposed 
that  he  would  wind  up  by  saying  that  they  are  not  absolutely  equal  after 
all.  Much  less  is  such  a  meaning  to  be  put  upon  his  words  when  there 
is  nothing  in  the  words  themselves  to  require  or  even  authorize  it.     The 

V  correct  view  of  the  verse  seems  to  be  this :  In  order  to  express  once  more  and 

\  in  the  most  emphatic  manner  the  admission  of  Egypt  and  Assyria  to  the 
privileges  of  the  chosen  people,  he  selects  three  titles  commonly  bestowed 
upon  the  latter  exclusively,' to  wit,  God's  people,  the  vjork  of  his  hands,  and 
his  inheritance,  and  these  three  he  distributes  to  the  three  united  powers 
without  discrimination  or  invidious  distinction.  If  this  view  of  the  matter 
be  correct,  the  meaning  of  the  whole  will  be  distorted  by  attaching  any 
undue  emphasis  to  the  concluding  words.  As  to  the  appUcation  of  the 
prophecy,  there  are  three  distinct  opinions.     One  is  that  the  Prophet  here 

/  anticipates  a  state  of  peace  and  international  communion  between  Egypt, 
Israel,  and  Assj'ria  in  his  own  times,  which  may  or  may  not  have  been 
actually  reahzed.     Another  is  that  he  predicts  what  actually  did  take  place 

ty  under  the  reign  of  Alexander  and  the  two  great  powers  that  succeeded  him, 
viz.  the  Graeco-Syrian  and  Egyptian  monarchies,  by  which  the  true  reU- 
gion  v»-as  protected  and  diffused,  and  the  way  prepared  for  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel.  A  third  is  that  Egypt  and  xVssyria  are  here  named  as  the  two 
great  heathen  powers  known  to  the  Jews,  whose  country  lay  between  them, 
and  was  often  the  scene,  if  not  the  subject,  of  their  contests,  so  that  for 
ages  they  were  commonly  in  league  with  the  one  against  the  other.  To 
describe  these  two  great  belligerent  powers  as  at  peace  with  Israel  and  one 

«  another,  was  not  only  to  foretell  a  most  surprising  revolution  in  the  state 
of  the  world,  but  to  intimate  at  least  a  future  change  in  the  relation  of 
the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  When  he  goes  still  further  and  describes  these 
representatives  of  heathenism  as  received  into  the  covenant,  and  sharing 
with  the  church  of  God  its  most  distinctive  titles,  we  have  one  of  the  clearest 

-•  and  most  striking  predictions  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  that  the  word  of 
God  contains.  One  advantage  of  this  exposition  is,  that  while  it  thus  extends 
and  elevates  the  scope  of  the  prediction,  it  retains  unaltered  whatever  there 
may  he  of  more  specific  prophecy  or  of  coincidence  with  history.  If  Alex- 
ander is  referred  to,  and  the  spread  of  Judaism  under  him  and  his  succes- 
sors, with  the  general  pacification  of  the  world  and  progress  of  refinement, 
these  are  so  many  masterly  strokes  added  to  the  great  prophetic  picture  ; 
but  they  cannot  be  extracted  from  it  and  made  to  constitute  a  picture  by 
themselves.     As  to  the  construction  of  the  first  clause,  it  may  be  observed 


Veb.  1.]  ISAIAH  XX.  365 

that  most  wi'iters  refer  the  rehxtive  pronoun  to  H^C;  or  give  'W'^  the  sense 
oij'or,  because,  but  Ewald  and  Knobel  make  '"!?^?  the  antecedent,  the  bless- 
ing wherewith  God  has  blessed  it,  as  in  Deut.  xii.  7,  xv.  14.  In  either 
case,  the  suffix  l^riS  refers  not  to  1*!)^?^  as  a  masculine,  because  denoting 
people,  but  to  Eg}-pt,  Assyiia,  and  Israel,  considered  as  a  single  nation. 
The  preterite  foiTQ  of  the  verb  has  reference  to  the  benediction  as  preced- 
ing and  occasioning  the  union  just  before  described.  When  Eg3'pt,  Assj-ria, 
and  Israel  are  thus  united,  it  will  be  because  God  has  already  blessed  them, 
saying,  &c.  There  is  therefore  no  necessity  or  ground  for  an  arbitrary- 
change  of  the  preterite  into  a  future,  nor  even  for  evading  an  exact  transla- 
tion by  the  substitution  of  the  present  form.  How  far  the  early  Jews 
were  below  the  genuine  spirit  of  the  Prophecies,  may  be  gathered  from 
the  fact  that  both  the  Septuagint  and  Targum  make  this  a  promise  to 
Israel  exclusively,  Ass}Tia  and  Egypt  being  mentioned  merely  as  the  places 
where  they  had  experienced  affliction. 


CHAPTEE   XX. 

About  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  attack  on  Ashdod,  the  Prophet  is  directed 
to  walk  naked  and  barefoot,  as  a  sign  of  the  defeat  and  captivity  of  the  Eg\q^)- 
tians  and  Ethiopians  who  were  at  war  with  Assyria.  The  first  verse  fixes 
the  date  of  this  symbolical  transaction;  the  second  contains  the  divine  com- 
mand and  the  record  of  its  execution  ;  the  third  and  fourth  explain  the 
meaning  of  the  symbol ;  the  fifth  and  sixth  predict  its  efiect,  or  rather  that 
of  the  event  which  it  prefigured.  The  questions  which  have  been  raised, 
as  to  the  date  of  the  composition  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy,  will 
be  most  conveniently  considered  in  the  course  of  the  detailed  interpretation. 
It  may  be  added  here,  however,  that  Cocceius,  with  all  other  interjireters, 
applies  this  chapter  to  the  hteral  Egypt,  but  instead  of  admitting  any  in- 
consistency between  this  hypothesis  and  that  which  supposes  chap.  xix.  to 
relate  to  the  mystical  Egj'pt,  he  ingeniously  converts  the  juxtaposition  into 
an  argument  for  his  own  opinion,  b}'  alleging  that  the  chapter  now  before 
us  was  added  for  the  very  purpose  of  shewing  that  the  foregoing  promises 
and  threatenings  did  not  belong  to  the  literal  Eg>^t. 

1.  In  the  year  of  Tartan  s  coming  to  Ashdod,  in  Sargon  king  of  Assyria's 
sending  him  (^.  e.  when  Sargon,  king  of  Assyria,  sent  him),  and  he  fought 
with  Ashdod  {i.  e.  besieged  it)  and  took  it.  Ashdod  was  one  of  the  five 
cities  of  the  Philistines  (Josh.  xi.  22,  xv.  46;  1  Sam.  v.  1),  considered  on 
account  of  its  strong  fortifications  (from  which  its  name  is  supposed  to  be 
derived)  the  key  of  Egypt,  and  therefore  frequently  attacked  in  the  wars 
between  Egypt  and  Assyria.  According  to  Herodotus,  Psammetichus 
besieged  it  twenty-nine  years.  This,  if  not  an  exaggeration,  is  the  longest 
siege  in  histoiy,  and  probably  took  place  after  what  is  here  recorded,  in  order 
to  recover  Ashdod  from  Assyria.  Its  site  is  marked  by  a  village  still  called 
Esdud  (Robinson's  Palestine,  ii.  368.)  The  name  of  Sargon  nowhere  else 
occurs.  Tartan  appears  again  as  a  general  under  Sennacherib  (2  Kings 
xviii.  17).  From  this  Usher,  Grotius,  Lowth,  and  Doederleiu  infer  that 
Sargon  and  Sennacherib  are  one  and  the  same  person.  According  to  Jerome, 
this  king  had  seven  names ;  according  to  Kimchi  and  the  Talmud,  eight. 
This  looks  veiy  much  like  a  Jewish  figment  designed  to  render  the  alleged 
identity  more  probable.  Marsham  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  identify  Sargon  with 
Esai-haddon;  Sanctius,  Vitringa,  andEichhorn,  with  Shalmaneser.  All  these 


866  ISAIAH  XX.  [Ver.  2. 

suppositions  arc  less  probable  than  the  obvious  one,  that  Sargon  was  a 
kin"  of  Assyria  mentioned  only  here,  because  his  reign  was  very  short,  and 
this  was  the  only  occurrence  that  brought  him  into  contact  with  the  Jews. 
That  he  was  not  the  immediate  successor  of  Sennacherib,  is  clear  from 
chap,  xxxvii.  38,  and  from  the  fact  which  seems  to  be  implied  in  2  Chron. 
xxxii.  21,  that  Tartan  perished  in  the  great  catastrophe.  The  most 
plausible  hypothesis,  and  that  now  commonly  adopted,  is,  that  he  reigned 
three  or  four  years  between  Shalmaneser  and  Sennacherib  (according  to 
Ivnobel's  computation,  from  718  to  715  B.C.).  It  is  said  indeed  in  one  of 
the  Apocr\-phal  books  (Tob.  i.  15)  that  Sennacherib  was  the  son  of  Enc- 
messar  {i.  e.  Shalmaneser)  ;  but  even  allowing  more  weight  to  this  authority 
than  it  deserves,  Sargon  may  have  been  an  elder  brother.  In  the  Vatican 
text  of  the  Scptuagint  this  name  is  written  'Aci/S,  in  the  Complutensian 
Nagm,  by  Aquila  and  Theodotion  la^ayJiv,  The  immediate  succession  of 
these  two  kings  readily  accounts  for  Tartan's  being  named  as  an  officer  of 
both,  as  Vitringa  observes  that  Abner  ser\-cd  under  Saul  and  Ishbosheth, 
and  Benaiah  under  David  and  Solomon.  So  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  in 
our  day,  has  served  under  four  successive  sovereigns.  Nothing,  therefore, 
can  be  proved  in  this  way  as  to  the  identity  of  Sargon  and  Sennacherib. 
Hendewerk  even  questions  the  propriety  of  inferring  that  they  reigned  in 
immediate  succession,  on  the  gi'ound  that  Tartan,  like  Babshakeh  and  Eab- 
saris  (2  Kings  sviii.  17),  was  not  a  proper  name  but  an  official  title. 
Hendewerk  himself,  however,  acquiesces  in  the  common  chronological 
h}-pothesis,  although  he  questions  this  mode  of  pro^dng  it.  The  name 
Tartan  is  written  in  the  Alexandrian  text  of  the  Septuagint  Na^ai',  in  the 
Vatican  TavdCav.  Here,  as  in  chap.  vi.  1,  it  is  disputed  whether  in  the 
year  of  Tartan's  corn'unj  means  before  or  after  that  occurrence.  The  truth 
is,  it  means  neither,  but  leaves  that  question  undetermined,  or  at  most  to 
be  determined  by  the  context.  Those  who  refer  the  last  two  verses  of 
the  chapter  to  the  Philistines,  and  suppose  the  prophecy  to  have  been  in- 
tended to  forewarn  them  of  the  issue  of  the  siege  of  Ashdod,  and  of  the 
folly  of  reh-ing  on  Egyptian  or  Ethiopian  aid  against  Assvria,  must  of 
course  assume  that  this  symbolical  transaction  took  place  before  the  arrival 
of  Tartan,  or  at  least  before  the  end  of  the  siege.  Those,  on  the  other 
hand,  who  suppose  it  to  refer  to  the  Jews  themselves,  find  it  more  natural 
to  assume  that  the  prophecy  was  uttered  after  the  fall  of  Ashdod.  In  this 
case,  the  recording  of  the  prophecy  may  have  been  contemporaneous  -^-ith 
its  publication.  In  the  other  case,  we  must  suppose  it  to  have  been  re- 
duced to  writing  after  the  event.  Here,  as  in  chap.  \\i.  1-16,  Gescnius 
infers  from  the  use  of  the  third  person,  that  the  chapter  was  not  ^^Titten 
by  Isaiah  himself,  but  by  a  scribe  or  amanuensis.  Here  too,  as  in  chap, 
vii.  1,  Ewald  regards  the  last  clause  as  a  parenthetical  anticipation,  and 
the  next  verse  as  continuing  the  narrative  directly.  As  if  he  had  said, 
"  In  the  year  that  Tartan  came  to  Ashdod  (which  he  besieged  and  finally 
took),  at  that  time,"  &c.  But  this  supposition  is  at  least  unnecessary. 
On  the  change  of  construction  from  the  infinitive  to  the  future,  and  the 
collocation  of  the  snbjcct  and  the  object  in  the  first  clause,  vide  supra, 
chap.  V.  24. 

^•f  2.  At  that  time  spake  Jehovah  by  the  hand  of  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz, 
saying,  Go,  and  thou  shalt  open  {i.e.  loose)  the  sackcloth  from  upon  thy 
loins,  and  thy  shoe  thou  shalt  pull  off  from  upon  thy  foot.  And  he  did  so, 
yoiny  naked  and  barefoot.  Maimonides,  Kimchi,  Staudlin,  and  Hende- 
werk, suppose  this  to  have  been  done  merely  in  vision.     This  supposition 


Vee.  3.]  ISAIAH  XX  367 

is  not  altogether  arbitrary,  /.  e.  without  any  intimation  in  the  text,  but  is 
rendered  more  improbable  by  the  expression  that  lie  did  so,  as  well  as  by 
the  statement  in  the  next  verse,  that  the  act  required  was  to  be  a  sign  or 
symbol  to  the  spectators,  which  certainly  implies  that  it  was  really  exhi- 
bited.    This  supposition  of  an  ideal  exposure  seems  to  have  been  resorted 
to,  in  order  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  Prophet  really  appeared  before 
the  people  in  a  state  of  nudity.      It  is  commonly  agi'eed,  however,  that 
this  was  not  the  case.     The  word  7iaked  is  used  to  express  partial  denuda- 
tion in  all  languages.     The  examples  quoted  by  Vitringa  from  Seneca, 
Suetonius,  and  Aurelius  Victor,  have  been  copied  or  referred  to  by  most 
later  writers.     As  biblical  examples,  may  be  cited  1  Sam.  xix.  24,  2  Sam. 
vi.  20,  Amos  ii.  16,  John  xxi.  7.      In  the  case  before  us  we  may  either 
suppose  that  the  P.^  was  an  upper  garment  which  he  threw  entirely  off,  or 
an  inner  garment  which  opened  by  ungirding  it,  or  a  girdle  itself  which  he 
loosened  and  perhaps  removed.    Sackcloth  was  a  common  mourning  dress, 
and  some  suppose  that  Isaiah  was  now  wearing  it  in  token  of  his  grief  for 
the  exile  of  the  ten  tribes  (Kimchi,  Lightfoot).      Others  understand  it  as 
an  official  or  ascetic  dress  worn  by  the  prophets  (Zech.  xiii.  4),  as  for  in- 
stance by  Elijah  (2  Kings  i.  8),  and  by  John  the  Baptist  (Matt.  iii.  4). 
Others  again  suppose  that  it  is  mentioned  as  a  cheap  coarse  dress  worn  by 
the  Prophet  in  common  with  the  humbler  class  of  the  people.     The  name 
P^  appears  to  have  reference  merely  to  the  coarseness  of  the  texture  ;  but 
the  cloth  would  seem  to  have  been  usually  made  of  hair,  and,  in  later 
times  at  least,  of  a  black  colour  (Rev.  vi.  12).     The  expression  by  the  hand 
denotes  ministerial  agency  or  intervention,  and  is  often  used  in  reference  to 
communications  made  to  the  people  through  the  prophets.     (Exod.  iv.  13; 
1  Sam.  xvi.  20  ;  Jer.  xxxvii.  2.)     So  in  this  case  the  divine  communica- 
tion was  really  addi-essed  to  the  people,  though  the  words  immediately 
ensuing  are  addi'essed  to  the  Prophet  himself.     There  is  no  ground,  there- 
fore, for  suspecting,  with  Hendewerk,  that  the  words  1!?,  &c.,  were  inter- 
polated afterwards  as  an  explanatory  gloss,  or  for  assuming,  with  Gesenius, 
that  1!?  is  here  used  like  a  corresponding  phrase  in  Arabic  to  mean  before 
or  in  the  jyresence  of,  as  some  suppose  it  does  in  1  Sam.  xxi.  14,  and  Job 
XV.  27.     It  is  not  even  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  phrase  has  exclusive 
reference  to  the  symbolical  action.     Gill :  "  He  spoke  by  him  by  the  sign 
he  used  according  to  his  order,  and  he  spoke  to  him  to  use  the  sign."    The 
simplest  and  most  natm-al  solution  is,  that  what  was  said  to  the  Prophet 
was  obviously  said  throuyh  Mm  to  the  people.     Above  thirty  manuscripts 
and  several  editions  read  "|  vJI  in  the  plural,  but  of  course  without  a  change 
of  meaning. 

3.  And  Jehovah  said,  As  my  servant  Isaiah  has  gone  naked  and  barefoot 
three  years  a  sign  and  symbol  concerning  Egypt  and  concerning  Ethioina. 
Here  begins  the  divine  explanation  of  the  symbolical  act  before  commanded. 
Although  the  design  of  this  transaction  was  to  di-aw  attention  by  exciting 
surprise,  nsiO  does  not  merely  mean  a  wonder,  but  a  portent  or  extraordi- 
nary premonition.  ?y  might  here  be  taken  in  the  more  specific  sense  of 
against,  but  the  more  general  meaning  is  sufficient,  and  agrees  well  with  the 
context.  Cush  has  been  variously  explained  to  mean  a  part  of  Arabia  on 
the  coast  of  the  Red  Sea  (Bochart),  or  this  part  of  Arabia  with  the  oppo- 
site part  of  Africa  (Vitringa) ;  but  the  latest  authorities  confirm  the  ancient 
explanation  of  the  word  as  meaning  Ethiopia.  In  the  prophecies  belonging 
to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  are  frequently  combined, 
either  because  they  were  in  close  alliance,  or  because  an  Ethiopian  dynasty 


308  ISAIAH  2'A'.  [Yer.  4. 

then  reigned  iu  Upper  Egypt.      It  has  heen  a  question  with  interpreters 
whether  the  words  three  years  are  to  be   connected  with  what  follows   or 
what  goes  before.     The  Septuagint  gives  both  solutions  by  repeating  r^/a 
irrj.     The  Masorelic  iuterpuuction  throws  the  words  into  the  second  clause, 
three  years  a  sign,  &,c.    This  construction  is  adopted  by  some  modern  writers 
for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  conclusion  that  Isaiah  walked  naked  and  bare- 
foot for  the  space  of  three  years,  which  is  certainly  the  obvious  and  prima 
facie  meaning  of  the  words.     Those  who  adhere  to  the  Masoretic  accents, 
understand  the  second  clause  to  mean  a  three  years'  sign  a)id  wonder,  i.  e. 
either  a  sign  of  something  to  occur  in  three  years,  or  to  continue  three  years, 
or  a  sign  for  three  years  of  a  subsequent  event.     Those  who  connect  three 
years  with  what  precedes,  either  understand  the  language  strictly  as  denoting 
that  the  Prophet  continued  to  go  naked  and  barefoot  for  that  space  of  time, 
or  palliate  the  harshness  of  this  supposition  by   assuming  that  he  only 
appeared  thus  when  he  went  abroad,  or  at  certain  set  times,  or  occasionally. 
The  most  improbable  hypothesis  of  all  is  that  of  a  transposition  in  the  text, 
niK  D':^  tr^L*'  for  d':^  l^bli^  niS  (Gesenius),  unless  the  preference  be  due  to 
that  of  Lowth,  that  the  original  reading  was  three  Jays,  or  to  that  of  Vitringa, 
that  three  days  was  meant  to  be  supplied  by  the  reader.    On  the  whole,  the 
simplest  and  most  satisfactory  solution  is  that  proposed  by  Hitzig,  who  sup- 
poses the  Prophet  to  have  exposed  himself  but  once  iu  the  way  described, 
after  which  he  continued  to  be  a  sign  and  wonder  for  three  years,  /.  e.  till 
the  fullilment  of  the  prophecy.    This  explanation  avoids  the  difficulty  as  to 
the  three  years'  exposure,  and  at  the  same  time  adheres  to  the  Masoretic 
interpunction.     The  three  years  have  been  variously  understood, — as  the 
duration  of  the  siege  of  Ashdod,  as  the  duration  of  the  exile  threatened  in 
the  next  verse,  and  as  the  interval  which  should  elapse  between  the  pro- 
phecy and  its  fulfilment.     Of  these  three  hypotheses  the  second  is  the  least 
probable,  while  the  first  and  third  may  be  combined. 

4.  So  shall  the  king  of  Assyria  lead  the  captivity  (i.  e.  the  captives)  of 
Egypt  and  the  exiles  of  Ethiopia,  young  and  old,  naked  and  barefoot,  ivith 
their  buttocks  uncovered,  the  nakedness  (or  disgrace)  of  Egypt.  This 
verse  completes  the  comparison  begun  in  that  before  it.  Jn?  is  commonly 
apphed  to  flocks  and  herds,  and,  like  the  Latin  ago,  corresponds  both  to  lead 
and  drive  in  English.  Our  language  does  not  furnish  two  equivalents  to 
'^C'  and  n-l?!  as  abstract  nouns,  exile  being  never  used  as  a  collective  for 
exiles.  The  sense  of  the  original  is  expressed,  with  a  change  of  form,  in 
the  English  Version  {the  Egyptians  prisoners,  and  the  Ethiopians  captives), 
and  by  Luther  {das  gefangene  Egypten  und  vertriebene  Mohrenland).  The 
phi-ase  Q''Ji?t'1  C"?!^^  is  not  meant  to  exclude  men  in  the  prime  of  life  because 
already  slain  in  battle  (Musculus),  but  comprehends  all  ages.  It  is  clear 
from  this  verse  that  Isaiah's  exposure  did  not  prefigure  the  spoliation  of  the 
Egyptians  (Barnes),  but  their  personal  captivity.  It  is  also  clear,  from  a 
comparison  of  the  type  and  antitype,  that  the  nakedness  of  ver.  2  was  a  par- 
tial one,  since  captives  were  not  commonly  reduced  to  a  state  of  absolute 
nudity.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  addition  of  the  word  barefoot  in  both 
cases,  which  would  be  superfluous  if  naked  had  its  strictest  sense.  The 
last  clause  is  separately  construed  by  Ewald:  they  who  are  thus  uncovered 
are  the  shame  of  Eg}pt.  Other  interpreters  continue  the  construction  from 
the  previous  clause,  nny  is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  strict  sense,  as  in  appo- 
sition with  the  phrase  before  it,  but  in  its  secondary'  sense  of  shame  or  ig)io- 
miny,  with  or  without  a  preposition  understood.  The  omission  of  Ethiopia 
in  this  last  clause  is  no  ground  for  supposing  it  to  be  interpolated  in  the  other 


Vek.  5,  6.]  ISAIAH  XX.  369 

(Hitzig),  nor  is  there  an  allusion  to  the  gi'eater  sensitiveness  of  the  Eg^'p- 
tians  (Vitringa).  The  omission  is,  so  to  speak,  an  accidental  one,  i.  e. 
without  design  or  meaning.  Even  Hendewerk  exclaims  against  the  tasteless 
and  unmeaning  maxim,  that  a  writer  who  repeats  his  o^\ti  expressions  must 
do  it  with  servile  exactness,  or  be  suspected  of  some  deep  design  in  the 
omission.  Connected  as  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  were  in  fact  and  in  the  fore- 
going context,  either  name  includes  the  other.  The  kiiif/  of  Assyria  here 
meant  is  neither  Nebuchadnezzar  (Cocceius),  nor  Esarhaddon,  nor  Shalma- 
neser,  but  either  Sennacherib  or  Sargon  himself.  The  modern  German 
writers  suppose  this  prediction  to  have  been  fulfilled  in  the  conquest  of  No- 
Ammon  (t.  e.  Diospolis  or  Thebes),  mentioned  in  Nahum  iii.  8  as  a  recent 
event.  How  long  beforehand  the  prediction  was  uttered  is  a  question  of 
small  moment,  and  one  which  cannot  be  decided.  There  is  no  ground, 
however,  for  the  supposition  that  the  interval  was  so  short  as  to  convert  the 
prophecy  into  a  mere  conjecture  or  an  act  of  sagacious  forecast.  Equally 
vain  are  the  attempts  to  determine  whether  the  king  of  Assyria  remained  at 
home  during  the  siege  of  Ashdod,  or  was  then  engaged  in  his  attack  upon 
Eg}^t.  The  chronological  h}T^)otheses  of  Usher,  Marsham,  and  Vitringa, 
all  assume  that  Sargon  was  identical  either  with  Shalmaneser,  Esarhaddon, 
or  Sennacherib,  ^?•1't^'^  is  explained  by  Jarchi  as  a  singular  with  a  super- 
numerary syllable,  by  Kimchi  and  Gesenius  as  an  old  form  of  the  plural 
absolute,  by  Ewald  as  an  old  form  of  the  plural  construct.  On  the  con- 
struction with  the  follomng  noun,  vide  supra,  chap.  i.  4,  iii.  16. 

5.  And  they  shall  be  afraid  and  ashamed  of  Ethiopia  their  expectation, 
and  of  Eyypt  their  boast.  This  is  the  effect  to  be  produced  by  the  catas- 
trophe just  threatened.  Both  the  Hebrew  verbs  take  IP  after  them,  as 
a/raid  and  ashamed  take  of  in  English ;  but  the  fiiU  sense  of  WH  is,  that 
they  shall  be  confounded,  filled  with  consternation,  at  the  fate  of  those  in 
whom  they  trusted  for  deliverance.  t^SP  is  that  to  which  they  look  for  help. 
It  is  used  in  the  same  sense  Zech.  ix.  5.  According  to  Hitzig,  1230  properly 
belongs  to  D^^iVP,  but  was  taken  from  it  to  be  joined  with  the  interpolated 
ti'-IS,  its  place  being  supplied  by  the  inappropriate  word  n^i<?ri.  Iinobel, 
on  the  contrary,  sees  a  peculiar  beauty  in  the  distinction  between  Ethiopia, 
to  which  they  merely  looked  for  help,  and  Egypt,  from  which  they  had 
formerly  received  it,  and  in  which  they  therefore  gloried.  The  verbs  in  this 
verse  are  indefinite.  Some  refer  them  to  the  Philistines,  others  to  the  Jews, 
and  a  third  class  to  an  Egyptian  faction  in  Jerusalem.  These  are  mere 
conjectures,  nor  can  anything  more  be  ascertained  from  the  intentionally 
vague  terms  of  the  text.  That  the  words  refer  to  the  PhiUstines,  is  inferred 
from  the  mention  of  the  siege  of  Ashdod  in  the  first  verse.  But  this  is  by 
no  means  a  necessary  inference,  since  Ashdod  was  attacked  and  taken,  not 
as  a  town  of  the  Philistines,  but  as  a  frontier  post  of  great  importance  to 
both  parties  in  the  war.  So  far,  then,  as  the  Jews  were  interested  in  the  war 
at  all,  they  were  interested  in  the  fate  of  Ashdod,  and  the  mention  of  this 
siege  as  one  of  the  principal  events  of  the  campaign  is  altogether  natural. 
In  favour  of  the  reference  to  Judah  may  be  also  urged  the  want  of  any  clear 
example  in  Isaiah  of  a  prophecy  exclusively  intended  for  the  warning  or 
instruction  of  a  foreign  power.  In  either  case,  the  meaning  of  the  verse  is, 
that  they  who  had  relied  on  Egypt  and  its  ally  Ethiopia  for  aid  against 
Assyi-ia,  whether  Jews  or  Philistines,  or  both,  should  be  confounded  at 
beholding  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  themselves  subdued. 

6.  And  the  inhabitant  of  this  isle  (or  coast)  shall  say  in  that  day,  Be- 
VOL.  I.  A  a  ' 


370  ISAIAH  XXI.  [Ver.  6. 

hold,  thus  (or  such)  is  our  ea-j^cctatiou,  nhilher  ue  Jlcd  for  help,  to  he 
delivered  from  the  jirescnce  of  the  kinfj  of  Assyria.  And  hoiv  shcdl  ive 
(ourselves)  escape?  The  disappointment  described  in  the  foregoing  verse 
is  now  expressed  by  those  -who  felt  it.  The  argument  is  one  a  fortiori.  If 
the  protectors  were  subdued,  what  must  become  of  the  protected  ?  The 
pronoun  in  the  hist  clause  is  emphatic,  as  it  usually  is  v.hen  not  essential  to 
the  sense.  The  Hebrew  ^N  has  no  exact  equivalent  in  English.  Three  dis- 
tinct shades  or  gradations  of  meaning  seem  to  be  clearh-  marked  in  usage. 
The  fii'st  is  that  of  land,  as  opposed  to  water ;  the  second  that  of  coast,  as 
opposed  to  inland  ;  the  third  that  of  island,  as  opposed  to  mainland. 
The  last,  although  commonly  expressed  in  most  translations,  is  perhaps 
the  least  frequent  of  the  three.  The  word  here  denotes,  not  Lower 
Egypt,  or  the  Delta  of  the  Nile  (Clericus),  but  the  south-eastern  shore  of 
the  Mediterranean,  here  called  this  coast,  as  Hendcwerk  observes,  in  order 
to  distinguish  it  from  that  coast,  viz.  Ethiopia  and  Egypt,  which  had  just 
before  been  mentioned.  As  to  the  extent  of  countr}'  meant  to  be  included, 
nothing  of  course  can  be  determined  from  the  word  itself,  which  is  de- 
siguedl}"  indefinite.  Hitzig,  in  accordance  with  his  view  of  the  whole  pro- 
phecy, restricts  the  application  to  the  land  of  the  Philistines,  as  the 
maritime  tract  in  the  south-west  of  Palestine,  adjacent  to  Egypt.  Others 
with  more  probability  regard  it  as  denoting  Palestine  itself,  in  the  large 
modern  sense,  but  with  particular  reference  to  Judah.  — This  or  such  is 
our  expectation,  i.e.  this  is  the  end  of  it,  you  see  what  has  become  of  it, 
you  see  the  fate  of  that  to  which  we  looked  for  help  (^Jt?2p) ;  how  then 
can  we  ourselves  (•1^0,^^.)  be  delivered  or  escape  ?  See  a  similar  expression, 
2  Kings  X.  4. 


CHAPTEK  XXI. 

As  three  of  the  verses  of  this  chapter  begin  with  tlie  word  N*b''?  (vers. 
1,  11,  13),  it  is  now  commonly  supposed  to  consist  of  three  distinct  pro- 
phecies. It  is  also  agi'eed  that  the  first  of  these  (vers.  1-10)  relates  to  the 
conquest  of  Babylon  by  the  Medes  and  Persians  ;  the  second  (vers.  11,  12) 
cither  to  Edom,  or  the  Arabian  tribe  Dumah ;  and  the  third  (vers. 
13-17)  to  another  Arabian  tribe,  or  to  Arabia  in  genei-al.  The  second 
and  third  of  these  divisions  are  admitted  by  the  recent  German  writers 
to  be  genuine,  that  is  to  say,  composed  by  Isaiah  himself,  while  the  first 
is  with  almost  equal  unanimity  declared  to  the  product  of  a  later  age. 
This  critical  judgment  as  in  other  cases,  is  founded  partly  on  alleged  diver- 
sities of  phraseology,  but  chiefly  on  the  wonderful  coincidences  with  his- 
tor}',  both  sacred  and  profane,  which  could  not  be  ascribed  to  Isaiah  or  to 
any  contemporary  writer,  without  conceding  the  reality  of  prophetic  inspira- 
*tion.  The  principle  involved  in  this  decision  is  consistently  carried 
out  by  Paulus,  Eichhorn,  and  Rosenmiiller,  who  regard  the  passage  as  an 
ex  post  facto  prophecy,  while  Gesenius,  Maurcr,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Umbreit, 
and  Ivnobel,  arbitrarily  reject  this  supposition,  and  maintain  that  it  was 
wi-itten  just  before  the  event,  when  Isaiah,  as  a  politician  or  a  poet,  could 
foresee  what  was  to  happen.  Upon  this  we  may  observe,  firht,  that  all  such 
reasoning  proceeds,  not  upon  the  want  of  satisfactoiy  evidence,  but  upon 
the  impossibility  of  inspiration  or  prophetic  foresight,  so  that  even  suppos- 
ing it  to  have  existed,  no  proof  could  establish  it.  There  is  nothing, 
therefore,  in  the  reasoning  of  such  writers  to  thake  the  faith  of  any  who 


Yek.  1.]  ISAIAH  XXI.  871 

do  not  hold  tlieir  fundameiital  principle  of  unbelief.  In  the  next  place, 
this  hypothesis  entirely  fails  to  account  for  the  minute  agreement  of  the 
prophecy  with  history  in  circumstantials,  which  must  therefore  he  ex- 
plained away  by  forced  constructions  and  interpretations.  Taking  the 
language  in  its  obvious  meaning,  and  excluding  all  gratuitous  assumptions, 
we  shall  be  constrained  to  look  upon  this  passage  as  one  of  the  most 
striking  instances  of  strict  agreement  between  prophecy  and  history.  As 
to  the  remainder  of  the  chapter,  while  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
connection  of  the  parts,  and  the  meaning  of  each  in  itself,  are  exceed- 
ingly obscure,  it  ma}'  be  doubted  whether  there  is  sufficient  ground  for 
their  entire  separation  as  distinct  and  independent  prophecies.  The  ex- 
treme bre%dty,  especially  of  the  second  part  (vers.  11,  12),  makes  this  very 
dubious,  and  the  doubt  is  strengthened  by  the  recurrence  of  the  figure  of 
a  watchman  in  ver.  11.  The  conclusion  drawn  from  the  use  of  the  word 
n"^'D  rests  upon  the  dubious  assumption  that  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  for- 
mal title  or  inscription.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  some  of  the  same 
writers  who  reject  these  titles  as  no  part  of  the  text,  appeal  to  their 
authority  in  settling  the  division  and  arrangement  of  the  chapter.  The 
truth  is,  that  this  formula,  in  many  cases,  seems  to  indicate  at  most 
the  subdivisions  of  an  unbroken  context.  In  the  case  before  us,  as  in 
chap.  xiv.  20,  it  is  safer  to  assume  the  unity  of  the  composition  than 
rashly  to  dismember  it.  However  difficult  it  may  be,  therefore,  to  deter- 
mine the  connection  of  these  parts,  they  may  safel}'-  be  regarded  as 
composing  one  obscure  but  continuous  prediction.  This  is  the  less  im- 
probable, because  they  can  all  be  brought  into  connection,  if  not  unity, 
by  simply  supposing  that  the  tribes  or  races,  to  which  vers.  11-17  relate, 
were  sharers  with  the  Jews  in  the  Babylonian  tyranny,  and  therefore  in- 
terested in  its  ^downfall.  This  hypothesis,  it  is  true,  is  not  susceptible  of 
demonstration  ;  but  it  is  strongly  recommended  by  the  very  fact  that  it 
explains  the  juxtaposition  of  these  prophecies,  or  rather  entitles  them  to 
be  considered  one. 

The  first  pai't  of  the  prophecy  opens  with  an  emphatic  intimation  of  its 
alarming  character,  vers.  1-4.  We  have  then  a  gi'aphic  representation  of 
the  march  of  the  Medes  and  Persians  upon  Babylon,  vei's.  5-9.  This  is 
followed  by  a  hint  of  the  effect  which  this  event  would  have  upon  the  people 
of  Jehovah,  ver.  10. 

The  remainder  of  the  chapter  represents  the  neighbouring  nations  as  in- 
volved in  the  same  sufferings  with  the  Jews,  but  without  any  consolatory 
promise  of  deliverance,  vers.  11-17. 

1.  The  burden  of  the  desert  of  the  sea.  like  lihirl winds  in  the  south,  as  to 
rushinf^  (or  driving)  from  the  wilderness  it  comes,  from  a  terrible  land.  By 
the  desert  of  the  sea,  Grotius  understands  the  countr}'  of  the  Edomites, 
extending  to  the  Red  Sea,  as  it  did  in  the  days  of  Solomon  (1  Kings  ix. 
26).  Other  interpreters  are  agreed  that  the  phrase  is  an  enigmatical  de- 
scription of  Babylonia  as  a  great  plain  (Gen.  xi.  1  ;  Isa.  xxiii.  13),  watered 
by  a  gi-eat  river,  which,  like  the  Nile  (chap.  xix.  5),  is  sometimes  called  a 
sea  (chap,  xxvii.  1).  This  designation  was  the  more  appropriate  because 
the  plain  of  Babylon,  according  to  Herodotus,  was  often  overflowed  before 
Semiramis  took  measures  to  prevent  it,  and  Abydenus  says  expressly  that 
it  then  had  the  appearance  of  a  sea.  The  threatened  danger  is  compared 
to  the  approach  of  a  tempest  from  the  south,  i.e.  from  the  great  Arabian 
desert,  in  which  quarter  the  most  violent  winds  are  elsewhere  represented 
as  prevailing.     ?  before  ^1?n  denotes  relation  in  general,  and  indicates  the 


372  ISAIAH  XXI.  [Ver.  2-4. 

point  of  the  comparison.  N3  is  indefinite,  and  may  either  be  referred  to  the 
enemy  or  made  to  agree  with  something,  or  the  Hke  understood.  As  "•3'7'?P 
cannot  be  referred  to  the  countries  through  which  Cyrus  passed,  Knobel 
disregards  the  accents  and  connects  it  with  what  goes  before.  "  Like 
south-winds  sweeping  from  the  wilderness,  one  comes  (or  they  come)  from 
a  ten-ible  land."  This,  however,  is  unnecessary,  as  the  phrase  "'3'jisp  may 
be  figurative,  and  refer  to  the  foregoing  comparison,  as  if  he  had  said, 
they  come  as  storms  come  from  the  desert. 

2.  A  hard  vision,  it  is  revealed  to  me  ;  the  deceiver  deceiving  and  the 
spoiler  spoiling.  Go  up,  0  Elam  ;  besiege,  0  Media  :  all  sighing  (or  all 
its  sighing)  have  I  made  to  cease.  The  first  phrase  of  course  means  a 
vision  of  severe  and  awful  judgments.  The  feminine  form  of  the  noun  is 
connected  with  a  masculine  verb,  as  Henderson  imagines,  to  intimate  the 
dreadful  nature  of  the  judgment  threatened.  It  is  hard  to  see  how  this  end 
is  attained  by  an  irregularity  of  syntax.  Others  regard  it  as  a  mere  enallage, 
which  is  the  less  probable,  however,  as  the  noun  precedes  the  verb.  Per- 
haps the  simplest  explanation  is  that  15 n  is  indefinite,  and  governs  the 
preceding  words;  as  if  he  had  said,  A  revelation  has  been  made  to  me  (con- 
sisting of)  a  grievous  vision.  The  older  writers  understand  the  next  clause 
as  a  description  of  the  Babylonian  tjTanny,  and  give  1313  its  usual  meaning 
of  a  treacherous  dealer.  The  late  -m-iters  apply  the  clause  to  the  conquerors 
of  Babylon,  and  make  1.^13  nearly  synonymous  with  llit^'.  But  this  sense 
of  the  word  cannot  be  justified  by  usage.  Nor  is  it  necessan,',  even  if  the 
clause  be  applied  to  C.yrus,  since  one  of  the  terms  may  describe  the  strata- 
gems of  war,  as  the  other  does  its  violence.  This  is  the  more  natural,  as 
Babylon  was  actually  taken  by  stratagem.  Go  up,  i.  e.  against  Babylon, 
either  in  reference  to  its  lofty  defences  (chap.  xxvi.  5),  or  according  to  a 
more  general  military  usage  of  the  phrase.  {Vide  supra,  chap.  vii.  1.)  The 
Medes  and  Persian  were  united  under  Cyras,  but  the  latter  are  here  named 
first,  as  Knobel  thinks,  because  they  were  now  in  the  ascendant.  The  final 
letter  of  "^OP?^  is  commonly  regarded  as  a  suffix,  though  without  mappik, 
all  its  sighing,  sc.  Babylon's,  i.  e.  all  the  sighing  it  has  caused  by  its  oppres- 
sion, or  all  the  sighing  of  it,  sc.  the  n"l?a,  or  captivity.  Some,  however, 
make  the  letter  paragogic,  and  read  all  sighing,  which  amounts  to  the  same 
thing,  the  limitation  which  is  expressed  in  one  case  being  understood  in  the 
other.  Elam,  a  province  of  the  Persian  empire,  is  here  put  for  the  whole. 
Knobel  sees  a  designed  paronomasia  in  the  similar  forms  ^^V  vi?. 

3.  Therefore  my  loins  are  filled  ivith  pain  ;  pangs  have  seized  me  like  the 
pangs  of  a  travailing  {looman) ;  I  writhe  (or  am  conmdsed)  from  hearing  ;  1 
am  shocked  (or  agitated)  from  seeing.  Some  regard  these  as  the  words  of  a 
captive  Jew,  or  of  a  Babylonian ;  but  there  is  no  objection  to  explaining 
them  as  expressive  of  the  Prophet's  own  emotions,  a  verj*  common  method 
of  enhancing  the  description  even  of  described  and  righteous  judgments. 
The  redupUcated  form  nPHpn  is  intensive.  Lowth's  translation,  convulsed, 
is  perhaps  too  strong,  as  the  common  version,  bowed  down,  is  too  weak. 
The  older  writers  give  the  IP  a  causal  meaning, /ro/n,  i.  e.  by,  or  on  account 
of.  The  later  writers  make  it  privative,  atvarjfrom  hearing,  i.  e.  so  as  not  to 
hear.  Ewald  obtains  the  same  sense  by  making  it  comparative,  too  much 
confounded  to  hear,  too  much  frightened  to  see. 

4.  My  heart  wanders  (reels,  or  is  bewildered) ;  horror  appals  me  ;  the 
twilight  (night  or  evening)  of  ing  pleasure  (or  desire)  he  has  put  for  (or  con- 
verted into)  fear  (or  trembling)\/(yj-  me.  Compare  the  combination  33?  *yri 
Ps.  xcv  10.     There  are  two  interpretations  of  the  last  clause.     One  sup- 


Ver.  5-7.]  ISAIAH  XXI.  373 

poses  it  to  mean  that  the  niglit  desired  as  a  time  of  rest  is  changed  into  a 
time  of  terror ;  the  other,  that  a  night  of  festivity  is  changed  into  a  night 
of  terror.  As  this  last  brings  the  prophecy  into  remarkable  coincidence  with 
history,  the  modern  Germans  commonly  prefer  the  former.  That  the  court 
was  revelling  when  Cyrus  took  the  city,  is  stated  in  general  by  Hero- 
dotus and  Zenophon,  and  in  full  detail  by  Daniel.  That  the  two  first,  how- 
ever, did  not  derive  their  information  from  the  prophet,  may  be  inferred 
from  their  not  mentioning  the  writing  on  the  wall, — a  prodigy  which  would 
have  seemed  incredible  to  neither  of  them. 

5.  Set  the  table,  spread  the  cloth,  eat,  drink  :  arise,  ye  chiefs,  anoint  the 
shield!  The  Hebrew  verbs  are  not  imperatives  but  infinitives,  here  used 
in  the  first  clause  for  the  historical  tense  in  order  to  give  brevity,  rapidity, 
and  life  to  the  description.  For  the  same  purpose  the  English  imperative 
may  be  employed,  as  the  simplest  form  of  the  verb,  and  unencumbered  ■svith 
the  personal  pronouns.  The  sense,  however,  is,  that  while  the  table  is  set, 
&c.,  the  alarm  is  given.  Luzzatto  makes  the  whole  verse  antithetical :  they 
set  the  table,  they  had  better  set  a  watch  ;  they  eat  and  drink,  they  had 
better  arise  and  anoint  the  shield.  ri''QVn  T\li'i  is  commonly  explained  to 
mean  Hatching  the  watch,  i.e.  setting  a  guard  to  prevent  surprise.  But  the 
context  implies  that  they  were  surprised.  Ewald  refers  it  to  the  watching 
of  the  stars,  which  agi'ees  well  with  the  Babylonian  usages,  but,  like  the  first 
explanation,  seems  misplaced  between  the  setting  of  the  table  and  the  sitting 
at  it.  Hitzig  and  Ivnobel  give  nsy  the  usual  sense  of  HSV,  to  overspread 
or  cover,  and  ^''3^'  (which  occurs  only  here)  that  of  the  thing  spread,  whe- 
ther it  be  the  cloth  or  skin  which  serves  the  orientals  for  a  table,  or  the 
carpet  upon  which  they  sit  at  meals.  The  anointing  of  the  shield  is  sup- 
posed by  some  to  be  a  means  of  presemng  it  or  of  repelling  missiles  from 
its  surface,  by  others  simply  a  means  of  cleansing  and  perhaps  adorning 
it.  Both  agree  that  it  is  here  poetically  used  to  express  the  idea  of  arming 
or  preparing  for  battle.  There  are  two  interpretations  of  the  last  clause. 
One  makes  it  an  address  by  Jehovah  or  the  Prophet  to  the  Medes  and 
Persians,  as  in  the  last  clause  of  ver.  2  ;  the  other  a  sudden  alarm  to  the 
Babylonians  at  their  feast.  Both  explanations,  but  especially  the  last,  seem 
to  present  a  further  allusion  to  the  surprise  of  the  king  and  court  by  Cyrus. 
This  coincidence  with  history  can  be  explained  away  only  by  giving  to  the 
verse  a  vague  and  general  meaning,  which  is  wholly  at  variance  with  the 
graphic  vividness  of  its  expressions. 

6.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  to  me :  Go  set  (or  cause  to  stand)  the  watch- 
man (or  sentinel) ;  that  which  he  sees  let  him  tell.  Instead  of  simply  predict- 
ing or  describing  the  approach  of  the  enemy,  the  Prophet  introduces  an  ideal 
watchman,  as  announcing  what  he  actually  sees.  According  to  Knobel,  he 
is  himself  the  watchman  (Hab.  i.  8),  which  is  hardly  consistent  with  the 
language  of  this  verse.  The  last  clause  may  be  also  construed  thus — who 
may  see  (and)  tell ;  but  the  first  construction  seems  more  natm-al. 

7.  And  should  he  see  cavalry — a  jmir  (or  pairs  of  horsemen) — ass-riders — 
camel-riders — then  shall  he  hearken  ivith  hearkening  a  great  hearkening  {i.  e. 
listen  attentively).  This  is  Ewald's  construction  of  the  sentence,  which 
supposes  the  divine  instructions  to  be  still  continued.  All  other  writers 
understand  the  Prophet  as  resuming  his  own  narrative  ;  and  he  saw  (or  he 
sees),  &c.  Against  this  construction,  and  in  favour  of  the  first,  is  the  form 
of  the  verbs,  which  are  all  in  the  preterite  with  vav  conversive,  because  fol- 
lowing the  futures  of  the  foregoing  verse  (Nordheimer,  §  219).  Besides,  if 
the  usual  construction  be  adopted,  ver.  9  is  a  mere  repetition  of  ver.  7,  and 


374  ISAIJJI XXI.  [Vek.  8. 

ver.  8  is  obviously  misplaced  between  them.  But  on  tlic  other  supposition, 
this  verse  contains  the  order,  and  the  ninth  its  execution,  while  the  eighth, 
as  a  preface  to  the  latter,  is  exactly  in  its  proper  place.  *10V  is  properly  a 
yoke  of  oxen,  then  a  pair  in  general.  It  is  here  collective,  and  means  jmirs 
of  horsemen,  i.  e.  horsemen  in  pairs,  or  marching  two  and  two.  The  sense 
of  steeds  or  riding-horses  (as  opposed  to  D^p-1D,  chariot-horsos),  given  to 
D^C'lS  by  Gesenius,  is  extremely  rare  and  doubtful,  and  ought  not  to  be 
assumed  without  necessity.  3??}  in  a  very  great  majority  of  cases  means  a 
chariot.  But  as  this  would  seem  to  make  the  Prophet  speak  of  chariots 
drawn  by  asses  and  camels,  most  of  the  late  w-riters  either  take  the  word  in 
the  sense  of  rows  or  troops,  which  seems  entirely  arbitrary,  or  in  that  of 
mounted  troops  or  cavalry,  which  seems  to  be  easily  deducible  from  3D"),  to 
ride,  and  may  be  justified  by  the  analogy  of  1  Sam.  viii.  4,  x.  18,  where  the 
word  must  mean  cither  riders,  or  the  beasts  on  which  they  rode,  although 
the  English  translators,  in  order  to  retain  the  usual  sense  of  chariot,  supply 
horses  in  one  place  and  men  in  the  other.  On  the  first  of  these  hypotheses, 
the  camels  and  asses  would  be  mentioned  only  as  beasts  of  burden  ;  but 
we  know  from  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  that  the  Persians  also  used  them 
in  their  armies  for  riding,  partly  or  wholly  for  the  purpose  of  fi-ightcning 
the  horses  of  the  enemy.  It  is  a  slight  but  obvious  coincidence  of  prophecy 
and  history,  that  Xenophon  represents  the  Persians  advancing  two  by  two 
(iig  8vo). 

8.  And  he  cries — a  lion — on  the  watch-ioiver,  Lord,  T  am  standing 
always  hy  day,  and  on  my  loard  (or  jjiace  of  observation)  I  am  stationed,  all 
the  night  {i.  e.  all  night,  or  every  night,  or  both).  That  the  setting  of  this 
watch  is  an  ideal  process,  seems  to  be  intimated  by  the  word  ^J'lff  one  of 
the  di%4ne  names  (not  \3"l?^,  my  lordm-  sir),  and  also  by  the  unremitted 
vigilance  to  which  he  here  lays  claim.  From  the  first  of  these  particulars, 
Knobel  infers  that  the  Prophet  is  himself  the  watchman,  stationed  by  Jeho- 
vah. But  see  ver.  7,  and  the  comment  on  it.  Another  view  of  the  passage 
maybe  suggested  as  possibly  the  true  one,  xiz.,  that  the  Prophet,  on  receiv- 
ing the  order  to  set  a  watch,  replies  that  he  is  himself  engaged  in  the  per- 
formance of  that  dutj\  According  to  the  usual  interpretation,  these  are  the 
words  of  the  delegated  watchman,  announcing  that  he  is  at  his  post,  and  will 
remain  there,  and  announce  whatever  he  may  see.  There  are  two  explana- 
tions of  nns  X^p.*1,  The  first  makes  n.'!'?^  tlae  beginning  of  the  watchman's 
speech — he  cries,  a  lion !  i.  e.  I  see  a  lion  coming,  meaning  the  invader.  The 
objection  to  this  is  not,  as  Henderson  alleges,  that  the  usage  of  the  language 
does  not  authorize  such  an  application  of  the  figure  of  a  lion  ;  but  rather  that 
this  abrupt  and  general  announcement  of  the  enemy  would  hardly  have  been 
followed  by  a  prefatory  declaration  of  the  watchman's  diligence.  This,  it 
is  clear,  must  come  before,  not  after,  the  announcement  of  the  enemy,  and 
accordingly  we  find  that  announcement  in  the  next  verse,  corresponding  ex- 
actly to  the  terms  of  the  instructions  in  the  seventh.  These  considerations 
seem  decisive  in  favour  of  the  other  hypothesis,  now  commonly  adopted,  viz. 
that  n^.7^  forms  no  part  of  the  sentinel's  report,  but  is  rather  a  description  of 
the  way  in  which  he  makes  it.  The  true  sense  of  the  words  is  given  in  a 
paraphrase  in  Rev.  x.  3,  he  cried  with  a  loud  roicc  as  u-hcn  a  lion  roareth. 
As  to  the  syntax,  we  may  either  supply  ?  before  ^^.'?^?,  of  which  ellipsis  there 
are  some  examples,  or  still  more  simply  read  the  lion  cric.<;,  thus  converting 
the  simile  into  a  metaphor.  The  first  construction  agi'oes  best,  however,  with 
the  Masoretic  accents.  Luzzatto  explains  iT.^X  as  the  usual  crj'  of  shepherds 
when  they  saw  wild  beasts  approaching. 


Ver.  9-1  l.j  ISAIAH  XXI.  375 

9.  And  hehoJd,  this  comes  (or  this  is  what  is  coming),  mounted  men,  pairs 
of  horsemen.  And  he  answers  (i.e.  speaks  again)  and  says,  Fallen,  fallen  is 
Babylon,  and  all  the  im ayes  of  her  gods  he  has  broken  (or  crushed)  to  the 
earth.  The  last  verb  is  indefinitely  construed,  but  obviously  refers  to  the 
enemy  as  the  instrument  of  Babylon's  destruction  rather  than  to  God,  as 
the  efficient  cause.  The  omission  of  the  asses  and  camels  in  this  verse  is 
explained  by  luiobel  on  the  ground  that  the  enemy  is  now  to  be  conceived 
as  having  reached  the  city,  his  beasts  of  burden  being  left  behind  him. 
But  the  true  explanation  seems  to  be  that  the  description  given  in  ver.  7 
is  abbreviated  here,  because  so  much  was  to  be  added.  Still  the  corres- 
pondence is  sutHciently  exact,  ^''i^  25!}  is  supposed  by  some  to  mean 
chariots  containing  men  ;  but  according  to  the  analog}'  of  ver.  7,  it  rather 
means  mounted  men.  As  the  phrases  camel-riders,  ass-riders,  there  used, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  can  only  mean  riders  upon  camels  and  asses,  so 
here  man-riders,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  can  only  mean  men  who  are 
riders  themselves.  The  structure  of  the  passage  is  highly  dramatic.  In  the 
sixth  verse,  the  Prophet  is  commanded  to  set  a  watch.  In  the  seventh,  the 
sentinel  is  ordered  to  look  out  for  an  army  of  men,  mounted  on  horses,  camels, 
and  asses.  In  the  eighth,  he  reports  himself  as  being  at  his  post.  In  the 
ninth,  he  sees  the  very  army  which  had  been  described  approaching.  An- 
swer is  used,  both  in  Greek  and  Hebrew,  for  the  resumption  of  discourse  by 
the  same  speaker,  especially  after  an  interval.  It  is  here  equivalent  to  spoJce 
again.  During  the  interval  implied,  the  city  is  supposed  to  have  been 
taken,  so  that  when  the  watchman  speaks  again,  it  is  to  say  that  Babylon  is 
fallen.  The  omission  of  all  the  intermediate  details,  for  the  purpose  of 
bringing  the  extremes  together,  is  a  masterly  stroke  of  poetical  description, 
which  would  never  have  occurred  to  an  inferior  writer.  The  allusion  to 
idols  in  the  last  clause  is  not  intended  merely  to  remind  us  that  the  conquest 
was  a  triumph  of  the  true  God  over  false  ones,  but  to  bring  into  view  the 
well  known  aversion  of  the  Persians  to  all  images.  Herodotus  says  they  not 
only  thought  it  unlawful  to  use  images,  but  imputed  folly  to  those  who  did 
it.  Here  is  another  incidental  but  remarkable  coincidence  of  prophecy  even 
with  profane  histoiT. 

10.  0  my  threshing,  and  the  son  of  my  threshing-floor!  What  I 
have  heard  froin  Jehovah  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel,  I  have  told  you.  This 
part  of  the  prophecy  closes  with  an  apostrophe,  showing  at  once  by  whose 
power  and  for  whose  sake  the  downfall  of  Babylon  was  to  be  brought  about. 
TJireshing  here  means  that  which  is  threshed,  and  is  synon}Tnous  with  the 
following  phrase,  son  of  the  threshing-floor,  i.  e.  (according  to  the  oriental 
idiom  which  uses  son  to  signify  almost  any  relation)  threshed  grain.  The 
comparison  of  severe  oppression  or  affliction  to  threshing  is  a  common  one, 
and  though  the  terms  here  used  are  scarcely  intelligible  when  literally  ren- 
dered into  English,  it  is  clear  that  they  mean,  oh  my  oppressed  and  afflicted 
people,  and  must  therefore  be  addressed  not  to  the  Babylonians  but  the  Jews, 
to  whom  the  fall  of  Babylon  would  bring  deliverance,  and  for  whose  consola- 
tion this  prediction  was  originally  uttered.  The  last  clause  assures  them 
that  their  o^\ti  God  had  sent  this  message  to  them. 

11.  The  burden  of  Dumah.  To  me  {one  is)  calling  from  Seir.  Watch- 
man, what  of  the  night  f  Watchman,  lohat  of  the  night?  It  has  been  al- 
ready stated  that  most  interpreters  regard  this  and  the  next  verse  as  an 
independent  prophecy  ;  but^that  the  use  of  the  word  ^t^??  is  an  insufficient 
reason,  while  the  extreme  brevity  of  the  passage,  and  the  recurrence  of  the 
figui'e  of  a  sentinel  or  watchman,  seem  to  indicate  that  it  is  a  continuation  of 


876  ISAIAH  XXL  [Yer.  12. 

what  goes  before,  although  a  new  subject  is  here  introduced.  Oi  Dumah 
there  arc  two  interpretations.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Hitzig, 
Ewald,  Umbreit,  understand  it  as  the  name  of  an  Arabian  tribe  descended 
from  Ishmael  (Gen.  xxv.  14  ;  1  Chron,  i.  30),  or  of  a  phice  belonging  to  that 
tribe,  perhaps  the  same  now  called  Duntah  Eljaiidil  on  the  confines  of  Arabia 
and  Syria.  In  that  case,  Scir,  which  lay  between  Judah  and  the  desert  of 
Arabia,  is  mentioned  merely  to  denote  the  quarter  whence  the  sound  pro- 
ceeded. But  as  Seir  was  itself  the  residence  of  the  Edomites  or  children  of 
Esau,  Vitringa,  Rosenmiiller,  and  Knobel,  follow  tlie  Septuagint  and  Jar- 
chi,  in  explaining  H^n  as  a  variation  of  the  name  Qi"'?<,  intended  at  the  same 
time  to  suggest  the  idea  of  silence,  solitude,  and  desolation.  This  enigmati- 
cal name,  as  well  as  that  in  ver.  1,  is  ascribed  by  Knobel  to  the  copyist  or 
compiler  who  added  the  inscriptions.  In  favour  of  the  first  interpretation  is 
the  mention  of  Ai'abia  and  of  certain  Arabian  tribes  in  the  following  verses. 
But  even  Edom  might  be  said  to  form  a  part  of  Arabia.  Jerome  also 
mentions  Dumah  as  a  district  in  the  south  of  Edom.  The  greater  import- 
ance of  Edom,  and  the  fi'equency  with  which  it  is  mentioned  in  the  prophets, 
especially  as  an  object  of  divine  displeasure,  also  recommend  this  exegetical 
hypothesis.  Knobel  adds  that  the  Edomites  were  subject  to  Judah  till  the 
year  b.c.  7-43,  and  would  therefore  naturally  take  part  in  its  sufi'erings 
from  Babylonian  tyranny.  Clericus  understands  the  question  to  be,  what 
has  happened  since  last  night  ?  The  English  Version  seems  to  mean,  what 
have  you  to  say  of  the  night  ?  Interpreters  are  commonly  agreed,  however, 
that  the  IP  is  partitive,  and  that  the  question  is,  what  part  of  the  night  is  it, 
equivalent  to  our  question,  what  o'clock  ?  This  may  have  been  a  custom- 
ary method  of  interrogating  watchmen.  i^T)?  is  indefinite,  or  may  agree 
with  ''Ip  understood.  {Vide  infra,  chap.  xl.  3).  Night  is  a  common  meta- 
phor to  represent  calamitj%  as  daybreak  docs  relief  from  it.  Some  regard 
this  as  a  taunting  in(]uiry  addressed  to  Judah  by  his  heathen  neighboui's.  It 
is  much  more  natiu-al,  however,  to  explain  it  as  an  expression  of  anxiety 
arising  from  a  personal  concern  in  the  result. 

12.  The  watchman  says,  3lorning  comes  and  also  night;  if  ye  will  in- 
quire, inquire  ;  return,  come.  Grotius  understands  this  to  mean  that  though 
the  natural  morning  might  return,  the  moral  or  spiritual  night  would  still 
continue.  Gesenius  explains  it  as  descriptive  of  vicissitude :  morning 
comes,  but  night  comes  after  it.  Most  writers  understand  it  as  relating  to 
dilTerent  subjects  :  morning  comes  (to  one)  and  night  (to  another)  ;  which 
would  seem  to  mean  that  while  the  Jewish  night  was  about  to  be  dispelled, 
that  of  Edom  or  Arabia  should  still  continue.  Those  who  regard  these 
verses  as  genuine,  but  deny  the  inspiration  of  the  writer,  are  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  referring  them  to  something  which  took  place  in  the  days  of 
Isaiah.  Ivnobel,  for  example,  understands  him  here  as  threatening  Edom 
with  a  visit  from  the  Assyrians  on  their  return  from  Egypt.  But  connected 
as  the  words  are  with  the  foregoing  prophec}',  it  is  far  more  natural  to  under- 
stand them  as  referring  to  the  Babylonian  conquest  of  Judea  and  the  neigh- 
bouring countries.  The  last  clause  intimates  that  the  event  was  still  un- 
certain. Henderson  and  others  give  to  -ISs^'  the  spiritual  sense  of  repentance 
and  conversion  ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  need  of  departing  from  tlae  literal 
import  of  the  word.  The  true  sense  of  the  clause  is  that  given  by  Luther. 
If  you  wish  to  know  you  must  inquire  again  ;  you  are  come  too  soon ;  the 
time  of  your  deliverance  is  not  at  hand  ;  return  or  come  again.  On  any 
hypothesis,  however,  these  two  verses  still  continue  enigmatical  and  doubt- 
ful in  their  meaning. 


Ver.  13-15.]  ISAIAH  XXI.  377 

13.  The  burden  of  Arabia.  In  the  forest  in  Arabia  shall  ye  lodge,  oh  ye 
caravans  of  Dedanim.  The  genuineness  of  this  verse  and  of  those  which 
follow  is  questioned  by  Eichhorn,  Paulus,  Baur,  and  Rosenmiiller,  but  de- 
fended by  I{j3obel  on  the  ground  that  1135  ""^^^  and  "i''?'^  \^^  are  expressions 
belonging  to  Isaiah's  dialect.  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk,  with  the  older  writers, 
regard  these  verses,  and  vers.  11,  12,  as  forming  one  prophecy.  But 
Knobel  maintains  that  vers.  11,  12  are  of  a  later  date,  for  the  singular 
reason  that  they  speak  with  uncertainty  of  that  which  is  confidently  foretold 
in  the  others.  He  also  alleges  that  the  title  or  inscription  was  taken  from 
the  word  ^^lyj?  in  the  next  clause,  even  the  preposition  being  retained.  But 
2  is  often  interposed  between  words  most  closely  connected,  and  this  verj' 
combination  occui's  in  Zech.  ix.  1,  where  no  such  explanation  can  be  given. 
The  Prophet  here  passes  from  Edom  to  Arabia,  or  from  one  Arabian  tribe 
or  district  to  another.  The  answer  in  ver.  12,  that  the  dawn  was  approach- 
ing for  the  Jews  but  not  for  them,  is  here  explained.  The  country  was  to 
be  in  such  a  state  that  the  caravans  which  usually  travelled  undisturbed 
would  be  obliged  to  leave  the  public  road,  and  pass  the  night  among  the 
bushes  or  thickets,  which  seems  to  be  here  (and  perhaps  originally)  the 
meaning  of  "i^!.  Forests  properly  so  called  do  not  exist  in  the  Arabian 
desert.  Gesenius  explains  nin~iX  as  the  participle  of  n"iX,  used  as  a  noun 
in  the  sense  of  travelling  companies  or  caravans.  The  Dedanim  are  men- 
tioned elsewhere  in  connection  with  Edom  and  Teman  (Jer.  xlix.  8  ;  Ezek. 
XXV.  13),  to  whom  they  were  probably  contiguous.  Their  precise  situation 
is  the  less  important  as  the}'  are  not  the  subjects  of  the  prophecy,  but 
spoken  of  as  strangers  passing  through,  the  interruption  of  whose  journey 
is  mentioned  as  a  proof  of  the  condition  of  the  country.  For  "^"^V.^.  the  an- 
cient versions  seems  to  read  ^.^P.?,  in  which  they  are  followed  by  Lowth, 
Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Knobel,  the  last  of  whom  defends  the  emendation 
on  the  twofold  ground,  that  3Tiy  is  a  name  found  only  in  the  later  Hebrew 
writers,  and  that  the  addition  of  this  name  would  be  superfluous,  as  the 
caravans  of  Dedanim  must  pass  of  course  through  the  desert  of  Ai-abia. 
The  first  of  these  arguments  admits  the  easy  answer  that  this  place  is  itself 
a  proof  of  earlier  usage.  To  the  second  it  may  be  replied,  that  Arabia  is 
not  half  so  superfluous  as  evening  in  connexion  with  -"IJ vri  which  strictly 
means  to  spend  the  night.  How  easy  it  would  be  to  retort  upon  such 
criticism  by  demanding  whether  they  could  pass  the  night  in  the  day-time. 

14.  To  meet  the  thirsty  they  bring  water,  the  inhabitants  oj  the  land  of 
Tema  ;  with  his  bread  they  prevent  (i.  e.  meet  or  anticipate)  the  fugitive. 
The  men  of  Tema,  another  Arabian  tribe,  also  engaged  in  trade  (Jer.  xxv. 
23 ;  Job  vi.  19),  are  described  as  bringing  food  and  di-ink,  not  to  the  De- 
danim mentioned  in  ver.  13,  but  to  the  people  of  the  wasted  country.  His 
bread  is  rendered  in  the  English  Version  as  a  collective  (their  bread)  refer- 
ing  to  the  men  of  Tema  ;  but  the  suflix  relates  rather  to  the  fugitive  him- 
self, and  the  whole  phrase  means  his  portion  of  food,  the  food  necessary  for 
him,  his  daily  bread.  The  ancient  versions  make  the  verbs  imperative  and 
understand  the  sentence  as  an  exhortation  to  the  people  of  Tema.  This 
construction,  which  is  adopted  by  Henderson,  requires  a  change  in  the 
pointing  of  the  text,  for  which  there  is  no  sufiicient  authority,  much  less  a 
necessity.  On  the  contraiy,  the  context  makes  it  far  more  natural  to  under- 
stand the  Prophet  as  describing  an  act  than  as  exhorting  to  it. 

15.  Because  (or  when)  from  the  presence  of  swords  they  fled,  from  the  pre- 
sence of  a  drawn  sword  and  from  the  presence  of  a  bended  bow,  and  from  the 
presence  of  a  weight  of  war.     This  verse  describes  them  as  not  only  plun- 


378  ISAIAU  XXII.  [Ver.  1G,  17. 

dered  but  pursued  by  a  blood-thirsty  enemy.  nC'"it3^,  according  to  usage, 
seems  to  mean  not  only  draxon  or  thmst  forth,  but  given  up,  abandoned  to 
itself,  and  as  it  were  allowed  to  do  its  worst.  ^53  is  properly  weight,  pres- 
sure, burden,  or  oppression.  The  corresponding  verb  is  connected  with 
the  same  noun  in  1  Sam.  xxxi.  3. 

16.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  to  me,  In  yet  a  year  (or  in  a  year  longer) 
like  the  years  of  a  hireling  {i.  e.  strictly  computed)  shall  fail  (or  cease)  all 
the  glory  of  Kedar.  This  verse  seems  to  fix  a  time  for  the  fulfilment  of  the 
foregoing  prophecy.  Here,  as  in  chap.  xvii.  3,  glory  comprehends  all  that 
constitutes  the  dignity  or  strength  of  a  people.  On  the  meanuig  of  the 
phrase  T*?*^'  ^^^'?,  vide  supra,  chap.  xvi.  14.  Kedar  was  the  second  son  of 
Ishmael  (Gen.  xxv.  13).  The  name  is  here  put  either  for  an  Ai'ab  tribe  or 
for  Arabia  in  general  (Isa.  xhi.  11,  Ix.  7  ;  Ezek.  xxvii.  21).  The  Rabbins 
call  the  Arabic  the  language  of  Kedar.  The  chronological  specification  in 
this  verse  makes  it  necessary,  either  to  assume  a  later  writer  than  Isaiah,  as 
some  do  in  chap.  xvi.  14,  or  a  terminus  a  quo  posterior  to  his  time,  as  if 
he  had  said,  within  a  year  after  something  else  before  predicted  ;  or  an  abrupt 
recurrence  from  the  days  of  Nebuchadnezzar  or  C}tus  to  those  of  Hezekiah. 
The  last  would  be  wholly  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  prophets  ; 
but  the  best  solution  seems  to  be  aflbrded  by  the  second  hypothesis.  The 
sense  will  then  be  that  the  Arabians  who  suffered  with  the  Jews,  so  far  from 
sharing  their  deliverance,  should,  within  a  year  after  the  'event,  be  entirely 
destroyed.  At  the  same  time,  due  allowance  should  be  made  for  diversity 
of  judgment  in  a  case  so  doubtful. 

17.  And  the  remnant  of  the  number  of  bows  (or  archers),  the  mighty  men 
(or  heroes),  of  the  chiUlroi  of  Kedar,  shall  be  few  (or  become  feu'),  for  Jehovah 
God  of  Israel  hath  spoken  it.  riEJ'p  is  here  collective  and  may  either  be  in 
regimen  or  apposition  with  the  words  which  follow.  The  latter  construction 
is  favoured  l)y  the  accents.  We  read  elsewhere  of  the  archery  of  Ishmael 
(Gen  xxi.  20)  and  Kedar  (Ps.  cxx.  4).  Another  construction,  which  refers 
the  first  clause  to  the  remnant  left  by  the  bows  of  the  enemy,  is  possible, 
but  should  not  be  assumed  without  necessity.  The  last  clause  intimates 
that  God,  as  the  God  of  Israel,  has  a  quarrel  with  Kedar,  and  at  the  same 
time  that  his  power  and  omniscience  will  secure  the  fulfilment  of  the 
threatening.  It  is  not  impossible  that  future  discoveries  may  yet  throw 
light  upon  these  brief  and  obscure  prophecies. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

This  chapter  naturally  falls  into  two  parts.  The  first  decribes  the 
conduct  of  the  people  of  Jerusalem  during  a  siege,  vers.  1-14.  The  second 
predicts  the  removal  of  Shebna  from  his  post  as  treasurer  or  steward  of  the 
royal  household,  vers.  15-25.  The  modern  critics  are  of  course  inclined 
to  treat  these  parts  as  independent  prophecies,  although  they  admit  that 
both  are  by  Isaiah,  and  that  both  were  written  probably  about  the  same  time. 
Against  this  supposition,  and  in  favour  of  regarding  them  as  one  connected 
composition,  we  may  argue,  first,  from  the  want  of  any  title  to  the  second 
part.  This,  it  is  true,  is  not  conclusive,  but  creates  a  presumption  which 
can  only  be  rebutted  by  strong  direct  evidence.  Another  reason  is  that 
the  second  part  of  this  chapter  is  the  only  example  in  Isaiah  of  a  prophecy 
against  an  individual.  This  again  is  not  conclusive,  since  there  might  be 
one  such  prophecy,  if  no  more.     But  the  presumption  is  against  it,  as 


Vee.  1.]  ISAIAH  XXII.  379 

analogy  and  usage  give  the  preference  to  any  exegetical  hypothesis  which 
would  connect  this  personal  prediction  with  one  of  a  more  general  nature. 
A  third  reason  is  that  in  the  second  part  the  ground  or  occasion  of  the 
threatening  is  not  expressed,  and  it  is  certainly  less  probable  that  the  design 
was  meant  to  be  conjectured  or  inferred  from  the  prophecy  itself,  than  that 
it  is  explained  in  the  passage  w^hich  immediately  precedes  it.  The  result 
appears  to  be,  that  by  considering  the  parts  as  independent  prophecies  we 
leave  the  second  incomplete  and  sui  generis,  whereas  by  combining  them, 
we  make  the  one  explain  the  other;  and  as  no  philological  or  critical  objec- 
tion has  been  urged  against  this  supposition,  it  is  probably  the  true  one. 
The  whole  may  then  be  described  as  a  prophecy  against  the  poople  of  Jeru- 
salem in  general,  and  against  Shebna  in  particular,  considered  as  their 
leader  and  example. 

It  has  been  disputed  whether  the  description  in  the  first  part  of  this 
chapter  was  intended  to  apply  to  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Sennacherib,  or 
by  Esarhaddon  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  or  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  or  by 
Titus.  An  obvious  objection  to  the  last  two  is  that  they  leave  the  predic- 
tion against  Shebna  unconnected  with  the  one  before  it.  Cocceius  ingeni- 
ously suggests  that  Eliakim  and  his  family  were  to  retain  their  official  rank 
and  influence  until  the  city  was  destroyed,  and  the  king'lom  of  Judah  at 
an  end ;  but  this,  though  possible,  will  scarcely  be  preferred  to  any  more 
natural  and  simple  supposition.  The  objection  to  Sennacherib's  invasion  is 
that  no  such  extremities  were  then  experienced  as  the  Prophet  here  describes. 
The  objection  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  is,  that  vers.  9-11  contain  an  exact  de- 
scription of  the  measures  taken  b}^  Hezekiah,  as  recorded  in  2  Chron.  xxxii. 
3-5.  Moved  by  this  consideration,  some  have  assumed  a  reference  to  both 
events,  the  siege  by  Sennacherib,  and  that  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  According 
to  Vitringa,  the  Prophet  first  describes  the  later  event  (vers.  1-5),  and  then 
recurs  to  one  nearer  at  hand  (vers.  Q^-^),  this  being  placed  last  partly  for 
the  purpose  of  bringing  it  into  juxtaposition  with  the  threatening  against 
Shebna.  According  to  Calvin,  vers.  1-5  predict  the  siege  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, while  vers.  G-11  describe  that  by  Sennacherib  as  already  past. 
These  suppositions,  though  admissible  in  case  of  necessity,  can  be  justified 
by  nothing  short  of  it.  As  the  measures  described  in  vers.  9-11  were  tem- 
porary ones  which  may  have  been  frequently  repeated,  it  is  not  absolutely 
necessary  to  apply  that  passage  to  the  times  of  Hezekiah.  If  the  whole 
must  be  applied  to  one  specific  point  of  time,  it  is  probably  the  taking  of 
Jerusalem  by  the  king  of  Assyria  in  the  days  of  Manasseh,  when  the  latter 
was  himself  carried  captive  with  his  chief  men,  and  Shebna  possibly  among 
the  rest.  The  choice  seems  to  lie  between  this  hypothesis  and  that  of  a 
generic  prediction,  a  prophetic  picture  of  the  conduct  of  the  Jews  in  a  cer- 
tain conjunctm-e  of  aftairs  which  happened  more  than  once,  particular 
strokes  of  the  description  being  drawn  from  difierent  memorable  sieges,  and 
especially  from  those  of  Sennacherib  and  Nebuchadnezzar. 

1.  The  burden  of  the  Valley  of  Vision.  What  {is)  to  thee  (what  hast 
thou?  or  what  aileth  thee?)  that  thou  art  wholly  (literally,  the  whole  of  thee) 
gone  iqj  on  the  house  tops?  The  first  clause  is  not  an  inscription  of  later 
date,  erroneously  copied  from  ver.  5  (Hitzig,  &c.),  but  the  original  com- 
mencement of  the  prophecy,  or  of  this  part  of  it.  The  modern  Germans 
pronounce  all  the  titles  in  this  form  spurious,  and  then  make  the  use  of  the 
word  ^'^J?  in  each  particular  case  a  proof  of  later  date.  It  is  jnst  as  easy 
and  far  more  reasonable  to  assert  that  the  use  of  this  word  in  such  connec- 
tions is  a  characteristic  of  Isaiah's  manner.     The  enigmatical  form  is  inten- 


380  ISAIAH  XXII.  [Ver.  2,  3, 

tional.  By  the  valley  of  vision  we  arc  not  to  understand  Babylon,  nor 
Judea  (Calvin,  Lightfoot),  but  Jerusalem,  as  being  surrounded  by  hills  with 
valleys  between  them.  There  is  no  allusion  to  the  degradation  which 
awaited  Jerusalem  (Kimchi),  nor  to  the  name  Moriah  (J.  D.  Michaelis), 
nor  to  the  school  of  the  prophets  in  the  valley  at  its  foot  (Yitringa),  nor  to 
the  spectacle  which  was  soon  to  be  there  exhibited  (J.  H.  Michaelis),  but 
to  Jerusalem  as  the  seat  of  revelation,  the  abode  of  the  prophets,  and  the 
place  where  God's  presence  was  manifested.  '=1<"'1^  as  usual  expresses  both 
suqn-ise  and  disapprobation.  [Vide  supra,  chap.  iii.  15).  The  oriental 
roofs  are  flat  and  used  for  various  purposes.  The  ascent  here  mentioned 
has  been  variously  explained,  as  being  designed  to  gratify  curiosity  by  gaz- 
ing at  the  approaching  enemy  or  the  crowds  of  people  seeking  refuge  in  Jeru- 
salem, or  to  assail  the  invaders,  or  take  measures  for  resisting  them,  or  to 
indulge  in  grief,  or  to  engage  in  idolatrous  worship,  or  to  celebrate  a  feast. 
The  truth  probably  is,  that  the  expression  is  here  used  as  a  lively  descrip- 
tion of  an  oriental  city  in  commotion,  without  any  intention  to  intimate  as 
3'et  the  cause  or  the  occasion,  just  as  we  might  say  that  the  streets  of  our 
own  cities  were  full  of  people,  whether  the  concourse  was  occasioned  by 
gi-ief,  joy,  fear,  or  any  other  cause.  Some  suppose  the  Prophet  to  inquire 
as  a  stranger  what  is  the  matter ;  but  he  seems  rather  to  express  disappro- 
bation of  the  stir  which  he  describes. 

2.  Full  of  stirs,  a  noisy  town,  a  joyous  city,  thy  slain  are  not  slain  with 
the  sword  nor  dead  in  battle.  The  first  clause  is  commonly  explained  by  the 
older  writers  as  a  descriptive  of  the  commotion  and  alarm  occasioned  by 
the  enemy's  approach.  But  this  makes  it  necessary  either  to  give  ntvy 
a  sense  not  justified  by  usage,  or  to  refer  to  a  past  time,  while  the  other 
epithets  are  applied  to  the  present.  Thus  Junius  makes  the  Prophet  ask, 
how  is  it  that  the  city  is  now  full  of  confusion  and  alarm  which  was  once  so 
joyous  ?  But  this  distinction  of  times  is  altogether  arbitrary.  The  same 
remark  applies,  but  in  a  less  degree,  to  another  construction  which  refers 
the  whole  clause  to  past  time.  The  latest  writers  are  agreed  in  making  it 
descriptive  of  the  present,  not  in  reference  however  to  alarm  and  agitation, 
but  to  the  opposite  condition  of  joyous  excitement,  frivolous  gaiety,  and 
reckless  indifl'erence,  described  in  ver.  18.  Kennicott  and  Tingstad  make 
*lv?n  mean  thy  irarriors,  but  it  is  now  universally  taken  in  its  usual  sense. 
The  expression  thy  slain  are  not  slain  with  the  sword  cannot  mean  that 
none  were  slain,  but  necessarily  implies  mortality  of  another  kind.  The 
allusion  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  to  pestilence,  by  others  to  famine,  such 
as  prevailed  in  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  also  that  by 
the  Romans.  As  neither  is  specified,  the  words  may  be  more  generally 
understood  as  describing  all  kinds  of  mortality  incident  to  sieges,  excepting 
that  of  actual  warfare. 

3.  All  thy  chiefs /led  together — -from  the  low — they  were  hound — all  that 
were  found  of  thee  were  hound  together — from  afar  they  fled.  This  verse 
describes  the  people,  not  as  crowding  from  the  country  into  Jerusalem, 
nor  as  fleeing  from  the  public  places  in  Jerusalem  to  hide  themselves,  but 
as  flying  from  the  enemy,  and  being  nevertheless  taken.  T^'P  is  neither  a 
civil  nor  a  military  chief  exclusively,  but  may  be  applied  to  either.  TIJ  is 
not  to  wander,  but  to  Jlee.  The  Masoretic  accents  connect  riB'pD  with 
11DN,  according  to  which  construction  wo  may  either  read  tlicy  are  hound 
{i.e.  made  prisoners)  by  the  how  {i.e.  the  archers,  as  light-armed  troops), 
or  without  the  how  {i.  e.  not  in  battle,  as  the  slain  were  not  slain  with  the 


Yek.  4-6.]  ISAIAH  XXII.  381 

sword)  ;  or  it  may  mean  xcithout  resistance,  without  drawing  a  bow.  Some 
understand  it  to  mean,  they  are  restrained  (by  fear)//ow  (using)  the  bow. 
Ewald  and  some  older  writers  disregard  the  accent,  and  connect  HSi^pO  with 
1113,  they  fled  from  the  bow,  but  are  nevertheless  taken  prisoners  together. 
All  that  u-ere  found  of  thee  may  be  in  antithesis  to  thy  chiefs  ;  as  if  he 
had  said,  not  only  thy  chiefs,  but  all  the  rest.  Some  understand  this  as 
describing  the  voluntary  confinement  of  the  people  in  Jerusalem  during  a 
siege  ;  others  apply  it  to  their  vain  endeavours  to  escape  from  its  privations 
and  dangers.  It  is  best  to  give  the  verse  its  largest  meaning  as  descrip- 
tive of  the  hardships  and  concomitant  evils,  not  of  one  siege  merely,  but 
of  sieges  in  general. 

4.  Therefore  I  said  (or  say).  Look  away  from  me  ;  let  me  be  bitter  in 
weepiny  (or  tcee^')  bitterly)  ;  try  not  to  comfort  me  for  the  desolation  of  the 
dauyhter  of  my  people.  These  are  not  the  words  of  Jerusalem  in  answer 
to  the  question  in  ver.  1  (Junius),  but  those  of  the  Prophet  expressing  his 
sympathy  with  sufferings  which  he  foresees  and  foretells,  as  in  chaps, 
xvi.  11,  xxi.  3.  •1^''Nri  seems  to  include  the  idea  of  obtruding  consolation 
upon  one  who  is  unwilliug  to  receive  it.  The  dauyhter  of  my  people  does 
not  mean  the  towns  dependent  on  Jerusalem  (Junius),  nor  Jerusalem  itself 
as  built  by  the  people  (Clericus),  nor  the  sons  of  the  people  expressed  by 
a  feminine  collective  (Gesenius),  but  the  people  itself,  poetically  represented 
as  a  woman,  and  affectionately  spoken  of  as  a  daughter. 

5.  For  there  is  a  day  of  confusion  and  trampling  and  perplexity  to  the 
Lord  Jehovah  of  hosts,  in  the  valley  of  vision — breaking  the  wall  and  crying 
to  the  mountain.  '31t<?  does  not  mean/?-o?«  or  by  the  Lord,  as  the  efficient 
cause,  but  to  the  Lord  as  the  possessor.  It-is  equivalent  to  our  phrase 
the  Lord  has,  which  cannot  be  otherwise  expressed  in  Hebrew.  He  ha^  a 
day,  i.e.  he  has  it  appointed,  or  has  it  in  reserve.  {Vide  supra,  chap.  ii. 
12.)  Trampling  does  not  refer  to  the  treading  down  of  the  fields  and 
gardens,  but  of  men  in  battle,  or  at  least  in  a  general  commotion  and  con- 
fusion. "Ip")p0  has  been  variously  explained  as  a  participle  and  a  noim, 
and  as  expressing  the  ideas  of  breaking  down,  shouting,  and  placing 
chariots  or  waggons  in  array.  V'\'^  is  not  simply  a  cry  but  a  ciy  for  help. 
To  the  mountain  are  not  the  words  of  the  cry  but  its  direction.  The  moun- 
tain is  not  Jerusalem  or  Zion  as  the  residence  of  God,  but  the  mountains 
round  about  Jerusalem  (Ps.  cxxv.  1).  The  meaning  is  not  that  the 
people  are  heard  crying  on  their  way  to  the  mountain,  but  rather  that  their 
cries  are  reverberated  from  it.  The  whole  verse  is  a  vivid  poetical  descrip- 
tion of  the  confusion  of  a  siege. 

6.  And  E lam  bare  a  quiver,  ivith  chariots,  men  (i.e.  infantry),  horsemen, 
and  Kir  uncovered  the  shield.  Elam  was  a  province  of  Persia,  often  put 
for  the  whole  countiy.  Its  people  were  celebrated  archers.  Some  read 
chariots  of  men,  i.e.  occupied  by  men,  which  would  seem  to  be  a  super- 
fluous description.  Others  read  cavalry  or  riding  of  men,  i.  e.  mounted 
men  as  in  chap.  xxi.  5,  but  in  that  case  C'^J'IS  would  be  superfluous.  Others 
give  22"i,  here  and  in  chap.  xxi.  the  sense  of  row,  line,  troop,  or  column, 
which  is  not  sufficiently  sustained  by  usage.  Others  give  3  its  usual  sense 
of  in,  which  cannot  however  be  applied  to  horsemen.  The  sense  of  horses, 
doubtful  at  best,  is  entirely  unnecessary  here.  On  the  whole,  the  simplest 
and  most  natural  construction  seems  to  be  that  which  supposes  three  kinds 
of  troops  to  be  here  enumerated  :  cavalry,  infantry,  and  men  in  chariots. 
Kir  is  now  agreed  to  be  identical  with  Kv^og,  the  name  of  a  river  rising  in 
the   Caucasus,  and  emptying  into  the  Caspian  sea,  from  which  Georgia 


382  ISA  I  AH  XXI I.  [  Yer.  7,8. 

(Girgistan)  is  supposed  to  derive  its  name.  Kir  was  subject  to  Assyria  in 
tlie  time  of  Isaiah,  as  appears  from  the  fact  that  it  was  one  of  the  regions 
to  which  the  exiles  of  the  ten  tribes  were  transported.  It  may  here  be  put 
for  Media,  as  Elam  is  for  Persia.  The  uncovering  of  the  shield  has  refer- 
ence to  the  invohicm  chjpeorum  and  the  tegimenta  sciiiis  tlctrahenda,  of  which 
Cicero  and  Ca?sar  speak,  leathern  cases  used  to  protect  the  shield  or  keep 
it  bright.  The  removal  of  these  denotes  preparation  for  battle.  The  an- 
cient versions  and  some  modern  writers  make  "i^"'  an  appellative  and  trans- 
late the  clause,  the  shield  leaves  the  wall  bare  by  being  taken  down  from  the 
place  where  it  hung,  or  the  enemy  deprives  the  ivall  of  its  sliield,  i.e.  its 
defenders.  Some  even  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  iestudo  or  covered  way 
of  shields,  under  which  the  Roman  soldiers  used  to  advance  to  the  walls 
of  a  besieged  town.  All  the  latest  writers  are  agreed  in  making  yp  a  pro- 
per name.  The  verbs  are  in  the  past  tense,  which  proves  nothing  however 
as  to  the  date  of  the  events  described. 

7.  And  it  came  to  2^0^$  (that)  the  choice  of  thy  valleys  {ihj  choicest  val- 
leys) iverefidl  of  chariots,  and  the  horsemen  drew  up  (or  took  up  a  position) 
tmvarcis  the  gate.  The  most  obvious  construction  of  the  first  clause,  and 
the  one  indicated  by  the  accents,  is,  the  choice  of  thy  valleys  teas,  or  it  was 
the  choice  of  thy  valleys  ;  but  as  this  seems  forbidden  by  the  following 
words,  most  writers  either  omit  ''<^'^\  as  a  pleonasm,  or  give  it  the  usual 
idiomatic  meaning  when  it  introduces  or  continues  a  narrative.  It  seems 
here  to  mark  the  progi-ess  of  events.  The  Prophet  sees  something  which 
he  did  not  see  before.  He  had  seen  the  chariots  and  horsemen  coming  ; 
but  now  he  sees  the  vallej's  around  full  of  thtm.  The  future  form  adopted 
by  some  versions  is  entirely  unauthorised.  "Whatever  be  the  real  date  of 
the  events  described,  the  Prophet  evidently  meant  to  speak  of  them  as  past 
or  present,  and  we  have  neither  right  nor  reason  to  depart  h-om  his  chosen 
form  of  expression.  The  address  is  to  Jerusalem.  The  valleys  are  men- 
tioned as  the  only  places  where  the  cavalry  or  chariots  could  be  useful,  or 
could  act  at  all.  As  the  only  level  approach  to  Jerusalem  is  on  the  north, 
tliat  quarter  may  be  specially  intended,  and  the  gate  may  be  a  gate  on  that 
side  of  the  city.  Otherwise  it  would  be  better  to  take  niJJC'  indefinitely  as 
denoting  the  direction  of  the  movement.  T\t'  may  either  be  explained  as 
an  emphatic  infinitive,  in  which  case  the  verb  will  be  reflexive  or  govern 
something  understood,  or  as  a  verbal  noun  equivalent  in  this  connection  to 
our  pest  or  station.  Another  admissible  construction  is  to  make  D^JHSn  the 
object  of  the  verb,  and  the  verb  itself  indefinite,  "  They  station  the  horse- 
men opposite  the  gate." 

8.  And  he  removed  the  covering  of  Judah,  and  thou  didst  look  in  that  day 
to  the  armour  of  the  house  of  the  forest.  The  first  verb,  which  some  connect 
with  the  enemy  and  others  with  Jehovah  understood,  is  really  indefinite  and 
may  be  resolved  into  an  English  passive,  the  covering  uas  removed.  This 
expression  has  been  variously  explained  to  mean  the  disclosure  of  long 
hidden  treasures — the  taking  of  the  fortified  towns  of  Judah  by  Sennacherib 
— the  disclosure  of  the  weak  points  of  the  country  to  the  enemy — the  open- 
ing of  the  eyes  of  the  Jews  themselves  to  their  own  condition — the  ignomini- 
ous treatment  of  the  people,  represented  by  the  oriental  figure  of  an  unveiled 
virgin.  The  analogous  expression  of  taking  away  the  veil  from  the  heart 
(2  Cor.  iii.  15,  10),  and  the  immediate  mention  of  the  measures  used  for 
the  defence  of  the  city,  are  perhaps  decisive  in  favour  of  explaining  the 
words  to  mean  that  the  Jews'  own  eyes  were  opened.  As  t23Pl  cannot  well 
agree  '"''7"'''^: ,  which  as  the  name  of  the  people  must  be  masculine,  it  is  best 


Tee.  9-11.]  ISAIAH  XXII.  883 

to  understand  it  as  the  second  person,  and  to  suppose  an  abrupt  apostrophe 
to  Judah,  a  figure  of  perpetual  occurrence  in  Isaiah.  "IV^H  n^3  is  not  a 
proper  name,  but  the  designation  of  a  house  built  by  Solomon,  and  else- 
where called  the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon,  because  erected  on  that 
mountain,  as  some  writers  think,  but  according  to  the  common  opinion,  be- 
cause built  of  cedar-wood  fifom  Lebanon.  This  house  is  commonly  sup- 
posed to  have  been  either  intended  for  an  arsenal  by  Solomon  himself,  or 
converted  into  one  by  some  of  his  successors,  and  to  be  spoken  of  in  Neh. 
iii.  19  under  the  name  of  p^^.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing  that  the 
house  contained  only  the  golden  shields  of  Solomon  and  Rehoboam.  The 
fact  that  these  were  there  deposited  might  naturally  lead  to  a  more  extensive 
use  of  the  building  for  the  purpose  mentioned.  looking  to  this  arsenal 
implies  dependence  on  its  stores  as  the  best  means  of  defence  against  the 
enemy,  unless  we  understand  the  words  to  signify  inspection,  which  agrees 
well  with  what  follows,  but  is  not  sufficiently  sustained  by  the  usage  of  the 
verb  and  preposition.  In  that  day  seems  to  mean  at  length,  i.  e.  when  made 
aware  of  their  danger. 

9.  And  the  breaches  of  the  city  of  David  ye  sav:,  that  they  ivere  many,  and 
ye  gathered  the  uaters  of  the  Joicer  pool.  The  breaches  meant  are  not  those 
made  by  the  enemy  in  the  siege  here  described,  but  those  caused  by  previ- 
ous neglect  and  decay.  The  city  of  David  may  be  either  taken  as  a  poetical 
name  for  Jerusalem  at  large,  or  in  its  strict  sense  as  denoting  the  upper  town 
upon  mount  Zion,  which  was  surrounded  by  a  wall  of  its  own,  and  called 
the  city  of  David  because  he  took  it  from  the  Jebusites  and  afterwards 
resided  there.  Ye  saic  may  either  mean,  ye  saw  them  for  the  first  time,  at 
length  became  aware  of  them,  or,  ye  looked  at  them,  examined  them,  with 
a  view  to  their  repair.  The  last  is  more  probably  implied  than  expressed. 
■"S  may  with  equal  propriety  be  rendered /or,  implying  that  they  could  no 
longer  overlook  or  fail  to  see  them,  because  they  were  so  many.  The  last 
clause  describes  a  measure  of  defence  peculiarly  important  at  Jerusalem 
where  there  are  very  few  perennial  spriugs.  This  precaution  (as  well  as  the 
one  previously  hinted  at)  was  actually  taken  by  Hezekiah  in  the  prospect  of 
Sennacherib's  approach  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  4),  and  has  perhaps  been  repeated 
in  every  siege  of  any  length  which  Jerusalem  has  since  experienced.  The 
louer  jwol  is  probably  the  tank  or  reservoir  still  in  existence  in  the  valley  of 
Hinnom  opposite  the  western  side  of  mount  Zion,  This  name,  which  occurs 
only  here,  has  reference  to  the  2ipper  pool  higher  up  in  the  same  valley  near 
the  Jaffa  gate  {vide  supra,  chap.  vii.  3.  Compare  Robinson's  Palestine,  I. 
488-487). 

10.  And  the  houses  of  Jerusalevi  ye  numlered,  and  ye  pulled  down  the 
houses  to  repair  (rebuild  or  fortify)  the  wall.  The  numbering  of  the  houses 
probably  has  reference,  not  to  the  levying  of  men  or  of  a  tax,  but  to  the 
measure  mentioned  in  the  last  clause,  for  the  purpose  of  determining  what 
houses  could  be  spared,  and  perhaps  of  estimating  the  expense.  The 
houses  are  destroyed,  not  merely  to  make  room  for  new  erections,  but  to 
furnish  materials.  Ancient  Jerusalem,  like  that  of  our  day,  was  built 
of  stone. 

11.  And  a  reservoir  ye  made  hetueen  the  tioo  walls  (or  the  douhle  wall) 
for  the  waters  of  tlie  old  pool,  and  ye  did  not  look  to  the  maker  of  it,  and  the 
former  of  it  ye  did  not  see.  Hipp  according  to  its  etjTUology  is  a  place  of 
gathering,  and  according  to  usage  a  place  where  waters  are  collected.  As 
the  Hebrew  dual  is  not  a  mere  periphrasis  for  tioo  {vide  stipra,  chap,  vi.  2), 
Djnbn  cannot  simply  mean  two  ivalls,  but  must  denote  a  douhle  wall  in 


384  ISAIAH  XXIL  [Ver.  12,  13. 

some  situation  where  but  one  had  been  before,  or  might  have  been  expected. 
The  reference  is  probably  to  a  wall  built  out  from  that  of  the  city  and  re- 
tnniing  to  it,  so  as  to  enclose  the  tank  or  reservoir  here  mentioned.  As 
this  was  a  temporary  measure,  perhaps  often  repeated,  there  is  no  need  of 
tracing  it  in  other  parts  of  history  or  in  the  present  condition  of  Jerusalem. 
It  is  altogether  probable,  however,  that  the  ohl  pool  here  mentioned  is  the 
same  with  the  upper  pool  of  chap.  vii.  3.  Some  have  identitied  it  with  the 
loner  pool  of  the  ninth  verse,  but  this  would  hardly  have  been  introduced  so 
soon  by  another  name.  The  last  clause  shews  that  the  fault,  with  which 
the  people  of  Jerusalem  were  chargeable,  was  not  that  of  guarding  them- 
selves against  attack,  but  that  of  relying  upon  human  defences,  without 
regard  to  God.  The  verbs  look  and  see  are  evidently  used  in  allusion  to 
the  last  clause  of  ver.  8  and  the  first  of  ver.  9.  They  looked  to  the  arsenal 
but  not  to  God.  This  seems  to  put  the  clause  before  us  in  antithesis  to 
the  whole  foregoing  context  from  ver.  8.  If  so,  the  suffixes  in  ^"'t^•y  and 
niV*  cannot  refer  merely  to  the  pool  or  reservoir,  but  must  have  respect 
either  to  the  city  or  to  the  calamity  now  coming  on  it.  In  the  latter  case, 
the  feminine  pronoun  may  be  indefinitely  understood  as  a  neuter  in  Greek 
or  Latin,  it,  i.  e.  this  crisis  or  catastrophe,  or  the  whole  series  of  events 
which  led  to  it.  Maker  and  former  are  not  distinctive  terms  referring  to 
God's  purjjose  or  decree  on  one  hand,  and  the  execution  of  it  on  the  other, 
but  are  poetical  equivalents  both  denoting  the  efllicient  cause. 

12.  And  the  Lord  Jehovah  of  hosts  called  in  that  day  to  ireeping,  and  to 
mourning,  and  to  baldness,  and  to  girding  sackcloth.  The  meaning  is  not  that 
he  called  or  summoned  grief  to  come,  but  that  he  called  on  men  to  mourn, 
not  only  by  his  providence,  but  by  his  word  through  the  prophets.  By 
baldness  we  may  either  understand  the  tearing  of  the  hair,  or  the  shaving 
of  the  head,  or  both,  as  customary  signs  of  grief.  The  last  phrase,  rendered 
in  the  English  Bible  girding  trith  sackcloth,  does  not  mean  girding  up  the 
other  garments  with  a  sackcloth  girdle,  but  girding  the  body  with  a  sack- 
cloth dress,  or  girding  on,  i.e.  wearing  sackcloth.  The  providential  call  to 
mourning  here  referred  to  must  be  the  siege  before  described. 

13.  And  behold  mirth  and  jollity,  slaying  of  oxen  and  killing  of  sheep, 
eating  of  flesh  and  drinking  of  wine;  eat  and.  drink,  for  to-morroiv  we  die. 
This  verse  presents  the  contrast  of  their  actual  behaviour,  with  that  to 
which  God  called  them  by  his  providence.  The  construction  in  the  com- 
mon version  is  ambiguous,  as  slaying,  &c.,  seem  to  be  participles  agreeing 
with  joy  and  gladness,  whereas  the  Hebrew  verbs  are  all  infinitives.  Some 
suppose  the  words  of  the  revellers  to  begin  with  3"in  (let  us  kill,  kc),  oihers 
with  ^b^  (let  us  eat  flesh,  &c.) ;  but  the  common  division  of  the  sentence 
is  most  natural,  because  there  is  then  no  repetition  or  tautology-.  In  the 
one  case,  the  people  themselves,  say,  let  us  cat  flesh  and  drink  wine,  let  tis 
eat  and  drink.  In  the  other  it  is  said  that  they  do  eat  flesh  and  drink 
wine,  and  they  are  then  introduced  as  saying,  let  us  eat  and  drink.  On 
the  same  groimd,  the  common  intei7)retation  is  to  be  preferred  to  Hende- 
werk's  idea,  that  the  whole  verse  contains  the  words  of  the  Prophet,  and 
that  those  of  the  people  are  not  introduced  at  all.  "  Slaying  of  oxen, 
killing  of  sheep,  eating  of  flesh,  drinking  of  wine,  eating,  drinking,  though 
to-mon'ow  we  die !  "  Another  objection  to  this  construction  is,  that  it 
supposes  the  event  to  be  still  future,  even  to  the  Prophet's  view ;  whereas 
the  whole  foregoing  context  represents  it  as  already  past,  if  not  in  fact,  at 
least  in  his  perceptions.  The  common  version,  let  us  eat  and  drink,  is 
perfectly  correct  as  to  sense,  but  needlessly  departs  from  the  peculiar  and 


Ver.  14,  15.]  ISAIAII  XXII.  385 

expressive  form  of  the  original.  I  have  substituted  eat  and  drink,  not  as 
imperatives,  but  as  the  simplest  forms  of  the  English  verbs.  (Vide  supra, 
chap.  xxi.  5.)  To  eat  and  to  drink  might  be  considered  more  exact,  but 
would  not  exhibit  the  compression  and  breviloquence  of  the  original.  It 
has  been  disputed  whether  these  last  words  are  expressive  of  contemptuous 
incredulity  or  of  a  desperate  determination  to  spend  the  residue  of  life  in 
pleasure.  It  is  by  no  means  clear  that  these  two  last  feelings  are  exclusive 
of  each  other,  since  the  same  man  might  express  his  disbelief  of  the  threat- 
ening, and  his  resolution,  if  it  should  prove  true,  to  die  in  the  enjoyment 
of  his  favourite  indulgences.  At  all  events,  there  can  be  no  need  of 
restricting  the  full  import  of  the  language,  as  adapted  to  express  both  states 
of  mind,  in  different  persons,  if  not  in  tlae  same. 

11.  And  Jehovah  of  hosts  revealed  himself  to  my  ears  (i.  e.  made  a  reve- 
lation to  me,  saying)  If  this  iniquity  shall  be  forr/iven  you  [i.  e.  it  certainly 
shall  not  be  forgiven  you)  until  you  die.  Some  take  n?;?3  as  a  simple 
passive,  and  supply  a  preposition  before  i^J^?,  it  was  revealed  in  my  ears 
by  Jehovah  of  hosts.  This  is  no  doubt  the  true  sense  ;  but  the  construc- 
tion of  the  verb  as  a  reflexive  with  nin^  for  its  subject,  is  full}'- justified  by 
the  analogy  of  1  Sam.  ii.  27,  iii.  21.  It  is  AvhoUy  unnecessary,  therefoi-e, 
to  read  \^^,  "  in  the  ears  of  Jehovah  of  hosts,"  or  to  supply  "i^N,  "  in  my 
ears,  saith  Jehovah  of  hosts."  {Vide  sujjra,  chap.  v.  9.)  The  1  before 
Hp^J  is  not  conversive,  as  it  does  not  connect  it  with  the  future  ^-"103,  whiah 
is  merely  a  quotation,  but  with  the  infinitives  in  the  first  clause  of  ver.  13, 
which  represent  historical  or  descriptive  tenses.  (Nordheimer,  §  219.) 
The  conditional  form  of  expression,  so  far  from  expressing  doubt  or  con- 
tingenc}',  adds  to  the  following  declaration  the  solemnity  of  an  oath.  What 
is  said  is  also  sworn,  so  that  "  by  two  immutable  things  in  which  it  is  im- 
possible for  God  to  lie,"  the  truth  of  the  threatening  may  be  confirmed. 
On  the  elliptical  formula  of  swearing,  vide  supra,  chap.  v.  9.  This  ini- 
quity of  course  means  the  presumptuous  contempt  of  God's  messages  and 
providential  warnings,  with  which  the  people  had  been  charged  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse.  This  ofience  is  here  treated  as  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  in  the  New  Testament,  and  is  indeed  veiy  much  of  the  same 
nature.  133?  strictly  means  shall  he  atoned  for  or  expiated.  Until  you  die 
is  equivalent  to  ever,  the  impossibility  of  expiation  afterwards  being  assumed. 
This  use  of  until  is  common  in  all  languages.  Some  of  the  Jewish  writers 
understand  the  words  to  mean  at  death  but  not  be/ore,  and  draw  the  infer- 
ence that  death  does  or  may  atone  for  sin.  But  the  Targum  has  the  second 
death  (NJ^Jn  NmO),  a  phi'ase  found  also  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment (6  divTiPog  '^diaroi),  and  constantly  employed  in  modern  religious 
phraseology  to  signify  eternal  perdition.  In  this  case,  however,  there  is 
no  gi'ound  for  departing  from  the  simple  and  ordinary  meaning  of  the 
words.  "  As  long  as  you  live  you  shall  not  be  forgiven,"  is  equivalent  to 
saying,  "you  shall  never  be  forgiven." 

15.  Thus  said  the  Lord  Jehovah  of  hosts,  Go,  go  into  this  treasurer  (or 
steward,  or  chamberlain),  to  Shebna  who  {is)  over  the  house.  From  the 
people  in  general  the  threatening  now  passes  to  an  individual,  no  doubt 
because  he  was  particularly  guilty  of  the  crime  alleged,  and  by  his  influ- 
ence the  means  of  leading  others  astray  likewise.  The  word  pb  has  been 
variously  derived  and  explained  to  mean  a  Sochenite  (from  Sochen  in  Egypt), 
a  sojourner  or  dweller  {i.  q.  ]'^^)  in  the  sanctuary,  a  steward  or  provider, 
a  treasurer,  and  an  amicus  regis  or  king's  friend,  i.  e.  his  confidant  and 

VOL.  I.  B  b 


886  ISAIAH  XXII.  [Yer.  16. 

counsellor.  Some  nntlerstand  the  last  wonls  of  the  verse  as  simply  ex- 
planatory of  this  title  ;  while  others  argue  that  the  Prophet  ■would  hardly 
have  described  the  man  by  two  titles  meaning  the  same  tiling.  A  third 
class  deny  that  1?D  is  here  applied  to  Shebna  at  all,  and  understand  the 
words  to  mean  this  steward  of  Shebna's,  or  this  (person)  labouring  for 
Shchna,  i.  e.  making  his  monument.  But  Shebna  himself  is  undoubtedly 
the  object  of  address  in  the  remainder  of  the  chapter.  Whatever  pD  may 
denote,  it  must  be  something  compatible  with  the  description  in  the  last 
clause  of  the  verse.  Whatever  Shebna  may  have  been  as  pb,  he  was  cer- 
tainly over  the  house.  Some  of  the  ancient  versions  give  to  house  here  the 
sense  of  temple  or  the  house  of  God,  and  infer  that  Shebna,  if  not  High 
Priest  or  a  Priest  at  all,  was  at  least  the  treasurer  of  the  temple.  But  the 
phrase  here  used  is  nowhere  else  employed  in  reference  to  the  temple, 
whereas  it  repeatedly  occurs  as  the  description  of  an  officer  of  state  or  of 
the  royal  household,  a  major-domo,  chamberlain,  or  steward.  As  the 
modern  distinction  between  State  and  household  officers  is  not  an  ancient 
or  an  oriental  one,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  functionary  thus  described, 
like  the  medieval  maires  du  pnlais,  was  in  fact  prime  minister.  This  would 
account  for  the  influence  tacitly  ascribed  to  Shebna  in  this  chapter,  as  well 
as  for  his  being  made  the  subject  of  a  prophecy.  The  phrase  this  treasurer 
may  either  be  expressive  of  disnpprobiition  or  contempt,  or  simply  desig- 
nate the  man  as  well  known  to  the  Prophet  and  his  readers.  These  fami- 
liar allusions  to  things  and  persons  now  forgotten,  while  they  add  to  the 
obscurity  of  the  passage,  furnish  an  incidental  proof  of  its  antiquity  and 
genuineness.  The  double  imperative  ^^'%  admits  of  diti'eront  explana- 
tions. The  second  may  perhaps  mean  r/o,  and  the  first  be  a  particle  of 
exhortation  like  the  Latin  age.  It  might  then  be  rendered  come  go,  al- 
though this  would  be  really  an  inversion  of  the  Hebrew  phrase,  which 
strictly  means  go  come.  On  the  whole,  however,  it  is  better  to  give  %  the 
sense  oi  go,  and  i<3  tbat  of  enter  or  go  in,  meaning  into  Shebna's  house,  or 
into  the  sepulchre  which  he  was  preparing,  and  in  which  some  suppose  him 
to  have  been  accosted  by  the  Prophet.  The  use  of  ^11  for  ?^  before  t^??^ 
is  supposed  by  some  to  imply  the  unfavourable  nature  of  the  message ;  but 
the  interchange  of  the  particles  is  not  so  unusual  as  to  make  this  explana- 
tion necessar3\  Some  manuscripts  and  versions  add  and  say  to  him,  which 
any  reader  can  supply  for  himself  without  an  emendation  of  the  text. 

16.  What  hast  thou  here,  and  uhom  Jiast  thuu  here,  that  thou  hast 
hewn  thee  here  a  sepidchre  ?  Hewing  on.  high  his  sepnlclire,  graving  in 
the  roch  a  habitation  for  himself  !  The  negation  implied  in  the  interroga- 
tion is  not  that  he  had  none  to  protect  and  aid  him,  or  that  none  of  his  kin- 
dred should  be  buried  there  because  they  should  be  banished  with  him,  but 
rather  that  he  had  none  buried  there  before  him  ;  it  was  not  his  birth-place, 
or  the  home  of  his  fathers.  What  interest,  what  part  or  lot,  what  personal 
or  hereditaiy  claim  hast  thou  in  Judah  ?  Here  then  refers  not  to  the 
sepulchre,  but  to  Jerusalem.  The  foreign  form  of  the  name  Shchna,  which 
occurs  only  in  the  histoiy  of  Hezekiah,  and  for  which  no  satisfactory  Hebrew 
etymology  has  been  proposed,  seems  to  confirm  this  explanation  of  the  first 
clause  as  representing  him  to  be  a  foreigner,  perhaps  a  heathen.  Another 
confinnation  is  afforded  by  the  otherwise  unimport;int  circumstance, 
that  the  name  of  Shebna's  father  is  nowhere  added  to  his  own,  as  in  the 
case  of  Eliakim  and  Joah  (ver.  20,  chap,  xxxvi.  3).  These  seem  to  be  snfli- 
cient  reasons  for  concluding  that  the  Prophet  is  directed  to  upbraid  him,  not 


Ver.  17.]  ISAIAH  XXII.  887 

with  seeking  to  be  buried  in  the  royal  sepulchres  although  of  mean  extraction, 
but  with  making  provision  for  himself  and  his  posterity  in  a  land  to  which 
he  was  an  alien,  and  from  which  he  was  so  soon  to  be  expelled.  The  third 
person  in  the  last  clause  is  not  to  be  gratuitously  changed  into  the  second 
{thy  sepulchre,  a  habitation  for  thyself),  nor  is  the  syntax  to  be  solved  by 
introducing  a  comparison  (as  he  that  heweth),  but  rather  by  supposing  that 
the  Prophet,  after  putting  to  him  the  prescribed  question,  was  to  express  his 
own  contemptuous  surprise  at  what  he  saw,  or  as  Maurer  says,  to  let  his 
eyes  pass  from  the  man  to  the  sepulchre  which  he  was  hewing.  It  is  not 
necessarily  implied,  however,  in  this  explanation,  that  the  conversation  was 
to  take  place  at  the  sepulchre.  011^  is  properly  a  noun,  and  means  a  high 
place,  but  is  here  and  elsewhere  used  adverbially.  The  labour  and  expense 
bestowed  on  ancient  sepulchres  (of  far  later  date  however  than  Isaiah's  time) 
is  still  attested  by  the  tombs  remaining  at  Jerusalem,  Petra,  andPersepolis, 
where  some  are  excavated  near  the  tops  of  lofty  rocks  in  order  to  be  less 
accessible,  to  which  practice  there  may  be  allusion  in  the  Oiip  of  the  verse 
before  us,  as  well  as  in  the  words  of  2  Chron.  xxxii.  33,  as  exj)lained  by  most 
interpreters,  viz,  that  Hezekiah  was  buried  in  the  hiqhest  of  the  tombs  of  the 
sons  of  David.  (See  Robinson's  Palestine,  I.  516-539,  II.  525.)  The 
jS'^'D  is  supposed  by  some  to  have  allusion  to  the  oriental  practice  of  making 
tombs  in  shape  (and  frequently  in  size)  like  houses,  by  others  more  poetically 
to  the  idea  of  the  grave,  as  a  long  home,  (D/"'^  ^"'5),  the  very  name  applied 
to  it  by  Solomon  (Eccles.  xii.  5).  In  this  case,  as  in  many  others,  the  ideal 
and  material  allusion  may  have  both  been  present  to  the  writer's  mind. 
What  (is)  to  thee  and  who  is  to  thee  are  the  usual  unavoidable  periphrases 
for  what  and  whom  hast  thou,  the  verb  to  have  being  wholly  wanting  in  this 
family  of  languages. 

17.  Behold,  Jehovah  is  casting  thee  a  cast,  0  man  !  and  covering  thee 
a  covering.  The  addition  of  the  infinitive  or  verbal  noun  as  usual  adds 
emphasis  to  the  expression,  while  the  participle  denotes  a  present  act  or  a 
proximate  futurity.  The  idea  that  he  is  certainly  about  to  cast  and  cover 
thee,  or  to  do  it  completely  and  with  violence.  ?t3?lD0  is  by  some  rendered 
casting  ont,  by  others  casting  doun.  The  latter  agrees  best  with  the  ety- 
mology and  with  the  rest  of  the  description.  Those  who  give  the  other 
sense  are  under  the  necessity  of  assuming,  that  the  Prophet,  after  saying  that 
the  Lord  would  cast  him  ofi",  goes  back  to  the  preliminary  acts  of  seizing 
him  and  rolling  him.  The  other  explanation  gives  the  natural  order.  First 
he  is  thrown  upon  the  ground,  then  rolled  into  a  ball,  and  then  violently 
thrown  away.  Some  of  the  latest  writers  give  Htoy  the  sense  of  seizing, 
grasping,  founded  on  an  Arabic  analogy,  and  justified,  as  they  suppose,  by 
the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  word  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  32,  xv.  19,  xxv.  14.  But 
except  in  these  few  doubtful  cases  the  word  unifonnly  signifies  to  veil  or 
cover.  As  this  is  the  term  used  in  the  law  which  requires  the  leper  to  cover 
his  upper  lip  (Lev.  xiii.  45),  Grotius,  with  perverse  ingenuity,  infers  that 
Shebna  was  to  be  smitten  w-ith  leprosy,  excluded  from  the  city  on  that 
account,  and  afterwards  restored,  but  not  reinstated  in  his  former  office. 
Gesenius  gives  HOy  the  sense  of  wrapping  up,  and  makes  it  thus  synonymous 
with  ^3^.  As  both  the  terms  have  reference  to  the  figure  of  a  ball,  the  dis- 
tinction seems  to  be  that  the  first  denotes  the  imposition  of  a  covering 
or  wrapper,  and  the  second  the  formation  of  the  whole  into  a  regular  and 
compact  shape.  There  are  several  different  ways  of  construing  "^^^  with 
the  words  before  it.      Some  suppose  it  to  be  governed  by^nPLDPD — uith  the 


aSb  ISAIAH  XXII.  [Ver.  18. 

cast  of  a  man,  i.  c.  a  manly,  vigoroits,  or  powerful  cast.  In  this  case  we 
must  cither  suppose  n^t37t2  to  be  an  absolute  form  put  for  the  construct — 
or  ri^t2'?t3  to  be  understood  after  it — or  13J  to  be  in  apposition  with  it,  or 
in  agreement  with  it  as  an  adjective — all  which  are  gi'atuitous  and  forced 
assumptions.  A  better  method  of  obtaining  the  same  sense  is  by  trans- 
lating "IIIJ — like  a  man,  i.  e.  a  mighty  man.  (Compare  Job  xxxviii.  3.) 
According  to  Hendewerk,  n?D?t3  is  a  verbal  noun  construed  as  an  infinitive, 
and  governing  13J  as  nyi  does  niil"'  in  chap.  xi.  9.  The  sense  is  then  with  the 
casting  of  a  man,  i.  e.  as  a  man  is  cast  or  thrown.  But  the  throwing  of 
a  man  is  the  very  thing  here  likened  to  the  throwing  of  a  ball.  The  simplest 
construction  is  the  one  given  by  Ewald  and  by  many  older  writers,  which 
takes  "133  as  a  vocative.  J.  D.  Michaelis  reads  "I35,  and  translates  itoA  robber! 
But  this  is  not  the  meaning  even  of  that  word.  Others  take  "i?.jl  in  its  pro- 
per sense  of  mighty  man,  others  in  the  simple  sense  of  man  as  distinguished 
from  God,  of  which  use  there  are  several  unequivocal  examples.  (Job  xxii. 
2,  X.  5  ;  Prov.  xx.  4.) 

18.  Rolling  he  will  roll  thee  in  a  roll,  like  a  ball  [tJironn)  into  a  spacious 
ground — there  shalt  thou  die — and  there  the  cJtariots  of  thy  glory — shame 
of  thg  master  s  house.  The  ejection  of  Shebna  from  the  country  is  com- 
pared to  the  rolling  of  a  ball  into  an  open  space  where  there  is  nothing 
to  obstruct  its  progress.  The  ideas  suggested  are  those  of  violence, 
rapidity,  and  distance.  Maurer  supposes  l^^'  to  denote  a  rolling  motion  ; 
but  most  interpreters  apply  it  to  the  act  of  rolling  up  into  a  ball,  which 
agrees  better  both  with  usage  and  the  context.  The  ellipsis  oi  throivn  or 
cast  before  '?K  is  altogether  natural  and  easily  supplied.  Instead  ofspacious 
the  original  has  Q^"'^  n^m,  idde  on  both  hands  or  sides,  i.  e.  extended  and 
open  in  every  direction.  All  the  interpreters  appear  to  apply  this  directly 
to  Shebna,  and  are  thence  led  to  raise  the  question,  what  land  is  meant? 
Some  say  Ass}Tia,  some  Mesopotamia,  Ewald  the  wilderness,  Grotius  the 
open  fields  out  of  Jerusalem  where  lepers  were  obliged  to  dwell.  It  seems 
to  me,  however,  that  the  phrase  in  question,  has  relation,  not  to  Shebna 
as  a  man,  but  to  the  ball  with  which  he  is  compared,  and  that  pi*  should 
be  taken  in  the  sense  of  ground.  To  the  three  derivatives  of  ^3V  in  the  first 
clause  Henderson  cites  as  illustrative  parallels  chaps,  xxvii.  7,  x.  IG,  sxix. 
14;  Micah  ii.  4 ;  and  from  the  classics,  the  mvoi  aoiw  -irovov  (p'iiu  of  Sophocles 
and  the  hoaiv  xaxuv  -/.uxuv  -/.axoT;  of  -i-Eschylus.  There  are  several  diflereut 
constructions  of  the  last  clause.  The  oldest  versions  make  ni33"lO  the  sub- 
ject, and  P^p  the  predicate  of  the  same  proposition  :  "  the  chariots  of  thy 
glorv'  (shall  be)  the  shame  of  thy  lord's  house."  This  can  only  mean  that 
the  king  would  be  disgraced  by  having  honoured  such  a  man,  chariots 
being  then  put  as  an  outward  sign  of  dignity  and  wealth.  Most  writers 
make  H^P,  and  what  follows,  a  description  of  Shebna  addressed  to  himself 
("  thou  shame  of  thy  master's  house"),  and  construe  nUDID  either  with 
niDn  ("  and  there  shall  thy  splendid  chariots  perish"),  or  with  the  verb  of 
existence  understood  ("there  shall  thy  splendid  chariots  be").  As  HCC* 
properly  means  thither,  it  may  be  so  taken  here,  the  construction  with 
nion  being  then  a  pregnant  one:  thither  shalt  thou  die  [i.e.  thither  shalt 
thou  go  to  die),  a)id  thither  shall  thij  splendid  ciiariots  [convey  thee).  The 
allusion  will  then  be  simply  to  Shebna's  return  to  his  own  coimtry  (whether 
Syria,  Phtnicia,  Mesopotamia,  or  Ass3'ria),  and  not  to  oaptivit}'  in  war  or 
to  sufl'ering  in  exile,  of  which  there  is  no  intimation  in  the  text.  All  that 
the  Prophet  clearly  threatens  Shebna  with,  is  the  loss  of  rank  and  influence 


Yer.  19-22.]  ISAIAH  XXII.  889 

in  Judah,  and  a  return  to  his  own  country.  An  analogous  incident  in  mo- 
dem history  (so  far  as  these  circumstances  are  concerned)  is  Necker's 
retreat  from  France  to  Switzerland  at  the  beginniag  of  the  French  Revo- 
lution. 

19.  A)id  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day  that  I  will  call  for  my  servant, 
for  Eliakim,  the  son  of  Hilkiah,  i.e.  will  personally  designate  him.  Elia- 
kim  appears  again  in  chap.  xxx\-i.  3,  and  there,  as  here,  in  connection  with 
Shebua.  There  is  probably  no  ground  for  the  rabbinical  tradition  that 
Ehakim  is  identical  with  Azeriah,  mentioned,  2  Chron.  xxxi.  13,  as  the  ruler 
of  the  house  of  God.  The  epithet  my  servant  seems  to  be  intended  to 
describe  him  as  a  faithful  follower  of  Jehovah,  and,  as  such,  to  contrast 
him  ,with  Shebna,  who  may  have  been  a  heathen.  The  employment  of 
such  a  man  by  such  a  king  as  Hezekiah  is  explained  by  some  upon  the 
supposition  that  he  had  been  promoted  by  Ahaz,  and  then  suffered  to 
remain  by  his  successor.  It  is  just  as  easy  to  suppose,  however,  that  he 
had  raised  himself  by  his  abilities  for  public  business. 

20.  And  I  will  thrust  thee  from  thy  post,  and  from  thy  station  shall  he  pull 
thee  down.  The  verb  in  the  last  clause  is  indefinite,  and  really  equivalent 
to  a  passive  (thou  shalt  be  pulled  down).  It  should  not  therefore  be 
translated  in  the  fijst  person  as  a  mere  enallage,  nor  made  to  agree  with 
Jehovah  understood,  which  would  be  a  very  harsh  construction,  and  though 
not  without  example,  should  be  assumed  onh'  in  case  of  necessity. 

21.  And  I  uill  clothe  him  with  thy  dress,  and  with  (Jiy  girdle  will  I 
strenythen  him,  and  thy  power  will  I  give  into  his  hand,  and  he  shall  be 
for  a  father  (or  become  a  father)  to  the  dweller  in  Jerusalem,  and  to  the 
house  of  Judah.  We  may  either  suppose  a  reference  to  an  ofl&cial  dress,  or 
a  metaphor  analogous  to  that  of  filling  another's  shoes  in  colloquial  Eng- 
lish. The  Piel  of  pfH  may  simply  mean  to  bind  fast,  but  the  strict  sense 
of  strengthening  agrees  well  with  the  oriental  use  of  the  girdle  to  confine 
the  flowing  garments,  and  to  fit  the  wearer  for  active  exertion.  Father  is 
not  a  mere  oriental  synonyme  of  ruler,  but  an  emphatic  designation  of  a 
wise  and  benevolent  ruler.  It  seems,  therefore,  to  imply  that  Shebna's 
administration  was  of  an  opposite  character.  The  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  family  of  Judah  comprehend  the  whole  nation. 

22.  And  I  will  put  the  key  of  the  house  of  David  on  his  shoidder;  he 
shall  open,  and  there  shall  be  no  one  shutting,  he  shall  shut,  and  there 
shall  be  no  one  opening.  In  other  words,  he  shall  have  unlimited  control 
over  the  royal  house  and  household,  which,  according  to  oriental  usages, 
implies  a  high  political  authority.  Some  suppose  a  reference  to  the  actual 
bearing  of  the  key  by  the  royal  steward  or  chamberlain,  and  explains  its 
being  carried  on  the  shoulder  by  the  fact,  that  large  wooden  locks  and  keys 
of  corresponding  size  are  still  used  in  some  countries,  the  latter  being  some- 
times curved  like  a  sickle,  so  as  to  be  hung  around  the  neck.  Against  this 
explanation  it  may  be  objected,  that  the  phrase  house  of  David  seems  to 
imply  a  metaphorical,  rather  than  a  literal  palace,  and  that  Q^ty  does  not  mean 
the  shoulder  merely,  but  includes  the  upper  part  of  the  back,  as  the  place 
for  bearing  burdens.  {Vide  supra,  chaps,  ix.  3,  x.  27.)  There  is  still  less 
to  be  said  in  favour  of  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  figure  of  a  key  em- 
broidered on  the  dress.  The  best  interpreters  appear  to  be  agreed  that  the 
government  of  administration  is  here  represented  by  the  figure  of  a  burden, 
not  merely  in  the  general,  as  in  chap.  ix.  5,  but  the  specific  burden  of  a  key, 
chosen  in  order  to  express  the  idea  of  control  over  the  royal  house,  which 
was  the  title  of  the  office  in  question.     The  application  of  the  same  terms 


390  ISAIAH  XXII.  [Ver.  23-25. 

to  Peter  (Mat.  xvi.  19),  and  to  Christ  himself  (Rev.  iii.  7),  does  not  prove 
that  they  here  refer  to  either,  or  that  Eliakim  was  a  type  of  Christ,  but 
merely  that  the  same  words  admit  of  different  applications. 

23.  Ami  I  liiUfustni  him  a  nail  in  a  sure  }>lace,  and  lie  shall  be  for  a 
throne  of  fflory  to  his  father  s  house.  The  figure  in  tlie  first  clause  naturally 
conveys  the  idea  of  security  and  permanence.  The  reference  is  not  to  the 
stakes  or  centre-post  of  a  tent,  but  to  the  large  pegs,  pins,  or  nails  often 
built  into  the  walls  of  oriental  houses  for  the  purpose  of  suspending  clothes 
or  vessels.  The  last  clause  is  obscure.  Some  suppose  the  figure  of  a  pin 
or  peg  to  be  still  continued,  and  that  it  is  here  represented  as  so  large  that 
men  may  sit  upon  it.  Others  suppose  the  nail  to  be  here  described  as 
fastened  in  a  throne ;  it  shall  be  (attached)  to  the  glorious  throne  of  his 
father's  house.  This  would  seem  to  warrant  Calvin's  supposition  that 
Eliakim  was  of  the  blood  royal.  But  such  a  construction,  if  not  wholly 
ungrammatical,  is  very  forced,  and  5<D3  is  the  Hebrew  name  for  any  seat 
(answering  to  stool  or  chair),  and  denotes  a  throne  or  chair  of  state  only  as 
being  a  seat  par  eminence.  The  most  natural  interpretation  of  the  words, 
and  that  most  commonly  adopted,  is,  that  the  figure  of  a  nail  is  here  ex- 
changed for  that  of  a  seat,  this  being  common  to  the  two,  that  they  alike 
suggest  the  idea  of  support,  though  in  diflerent  ways.  Those  whom  Eliakim 
was  the  means  of  promoting  might  be  said,  with  a  change  of  figure,  but 
without  a  change  of  meaning,  both  to  sit  and  hang  upon  him.  He  was  to 
be  not  only  a  seat,  but  a  seat  of  hnnour,  which  is  nearer  to  the  meaning  of 
the  Hebrew  phrase  than  throne  cf  (ihrij. 

24.  And  they  shall  haii;/  upon  him  all  the  honour  of  his  father  s  house — 
the  offsprinfj  and  the  issue — all  vessels  of  small  qua)ititij — from  vessels  of  cups 
even  to  all  vessels  of  flagons.  Here  the  figure  of  a  nail  is  resumed.  The 
dependents  of  Eliakim  are  represented  as  suspended  on  him  as  their  sole 
support.  D"'NVNV  and  niySV  are  expressions  borrowed  from  the  vegetable 
world.  Henderson  imitates  the  form  of  the  original  by  rendering  them 
offspring  and  offset.  It  is  commonly  assumed  by  interpreters  that  the  two 
words  are  in  antithesis,  denoting  either  different  sexes  (sons  and  daughters), 
or  different  generations  (sons  and  grandsons),  or  different  ranks,  which  last 
is  the  usual  explanation,  and  derives  some  countenance  from  the  etymology 
of  nyav  and  the  analogy  of  Ezek.  iv.  15.  The  next  phrase  is  designed  to 
shew  that  even  the  least  are  not  to  be  excepted.  In  the  last  clause  niJiN 
and  l]''P3J  may  either  be  taken  as  equivalent  expressions,  or  as  contrasting 
the  gold  and  silver  vessels  of  the  altar  (Exod.  xxiv.  6)  with  common  earthen 
utensils  (Jer.  xlviii.  12;  Lam.  iv.  2).  The  old  intei-pretation  of  D^'?33,  as 
denoting  musical  instruments,  though  justified  by  usage,  is  forbidden  by 
the  context.  The  Targum  explicitly  applies  the  clause  to  the  priests  who 
served  the  altar,  and  the  Levites  who  conducted  the  music  of  the  temple. 
This  explanation  is  connected  with  that  of  ri''2  in  ver.  1,  as  denoting  the 
temple  or  the  house  of  God. 

25.  In  that  dity,  saith  Jehovah  of  hosts,  shall  the  nail  fastened  in  a  sure 
plflce  be  removed,  and  be  cut  doum,  and.  fall,  ayid  the  burden  tvhich  ivas  on  it 
shall  be  ctit  off ^  for  Jehovah  speaks.  The  most  natural  and  obvious  applica- 
tion of  these  words  is  to  Eliakim,  who  had  just  been  represented  as  a  nail 
in  a  sure  place.  But  as  this  would  predict  his  fall,  without  the  slightest 
intimation  of  the  reason,  and  in  seeming  contradiction  to  the  previous  con- 
text, most  infcriiretcrs  reject  this  exposition  as  untenable.  Hitzig  indeed 
maintains  that  this  is  the  only  meaning  which  the  words  will  bear,  but 
assumes  that  these  two  verses  were  added  at  a  later  date,  shortly  befure  or 


Ver.  25.]  ISAIAH  XXIII.  391 

after  Eliakim's  own  disgrace.  Hendewerk  adopts  the  same  hypothesis,  but 
applies  it  to  the  last  verse  only.  J.  H.  Michaelis  alone  gives  a  favourable 
meaning  to  the  figures  of  ver.  25,  as  signifying  that  Eliakim  should  die  in 
peace,  to  the  irreparable  loss  of  Judah,  and  of  his  own  dependents  in  parti- 
cular. Another  exegetical  expedient  is  to  apply  even  ver.  23  to  Shebna, 
not  as  a  promise  of  what  God  would  do,  but  as  a  narrative  of  what  he  had 
done.  The  obvious  objections  are,  that  the  verbs  in  that  verse  are  as  cer- 
tainly future  as  those  in  the  one  before  it ;  and  that  both  verses  must  be 
referred  to  the  same  subject,  unless  the  supposition  of  a  change  be  abso- 
lutely necessary.  Such  a  necessity  does  seem  to  exist  in  ver.  25,  and  is  the 
more  easily  assumed  because  the  grammatical  objection  is  not  applicable 
there.  Most  writers,  therefore,  seem  to  be  agreed,  that  the  twenty-fifth 
verse  relates  to  Shebna,  and  tlaat  the  Prophet,  after  likening  Eliakim  to  a 
nail  fastened  in  a  sure  place,  tacitly  applies  the  same  comparison  to  Shebna, 
and  declares  that  the  nail  which  now  seems  to  be  securely  fastened  shall 
soon  yield  to  make  way  for  the  other.  Those  who  refer  the  verse  to 
Eliakim  suppose  his  fall  to  have  been  occasioned  by  his  nepotism  or  ex- 
cessive patronage  of  his  relations,  a  conjectural  inference  from  ver.  2i. 
The  partial  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  recorded 
in  chap,  xxxvi.  3,  where  Eliakim  actually  fills  the  place  here  promised  to 
him,  and  Shebna  appears  in  the  inferior  character  of  a  scribe  or  secretary. 
Some  indeed  suppose  two  persons  of  the  name  of  Shebna,  which  is  not  only 
arbitrary  in  itself,  but  rendered  more  improbable  by  this  consideration,  that 
Shebna  is  probably  a  foreign  name,  and  certainly  occurs  only  in  these  and 
the  parallel  places,  whereas  Hilkiah  is  of  frequent  occurrence,  and  yet  is 
admitted  upon  all  hands  to  denote  the  same  person.  It  seems  improbable 
no  doubt  that  Shebna,  after  such  a  threatening,  should  be  transferred  to 
another  office.  But  the  threatening  may  not  have  been  public,  and  the 
transfer  may  have  been  merely  the  beginning  of  his  degradation.  But  even 
supposing  that  the  Shebna  of  chap,  xxxvi.  2  is  a  difierent  person,  and  that 
the  execution  of  this  judgment  is  nowhere  explicitly  recorded,  there  is  no 
need  of  concluding  that  it  was  revoked,  or  that  it  was  meant  to  be  condi- 
tional, much  less  that  it  was  falsified  by  the  event.  It  is  a  common  usage 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  of  this  book  in  particular,  to  record  a  divine  com- 
mand and  not  its  execution,  leaving  the  latter  to  be  inferred  from  the  for- 
mer as  a  matter  of  coarse.  Of  this  we  have  had  repeated  examples,  such 
as  chap.  vii.  4,  and  viii.  1.  Nay,  in  this  very  case,  we  are  merely  told  what 
Isaiah  was  comman^led  to  say  to  Shebna,  without  being  told  that  he  obeyed 
the  order.  If  the  execution  of  this  order  may  be  taken  for  granted,  so  may 
the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy.  If  it  had  failed,  it  would  not  have  been  re- 
corded or  preserved  among  the  prophecies. 

/./ 

CHAPTER   XXIII 

This  prophecy  consists  of  two  parts.  The  first  predicts  the  fall  of  Tyre, 
vers.  1-14.  The  second  promises  its  restoration  and  conversion,  vers.  15-18. 
The  fall  of  Tyre  is  predicted,  not  directly,  but  in  the  form  of  apostrophes, 
addressed  to  her  own  people  or  her  colonies,  vers.  1-7.  The  destruction 
is  referred  to  God  as  its  author,  and  to  the  Chaldees  as  his  instruments, 
vers.  8-14.  The  prediction  in  the  latter  part  includes  three  events.  Tyre 
shall  be  forsaken  and  forgotten  for  seventy  years,  ver.  15.     She  shall  then 


392  ISAIAH  XX J 11. 

be  restored  to  her  former  activity  and  wealth,  vers.  16,  17.     Thenceforth 
her  gains  shall  be  devoted  to  the  Lord,  ver.  18. 

Tyre,  one  of  the  chief  cities  of  Phenicia,  was  situated  partly  on  a  rocky 
island  near  the  coast,  and  partly  in  a  wide  and  fertile  plain  upon  the  coast 
itself.  It  was  long  a  current  opinion  that  the  insular  Tyre  had  no  existence 
before  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar ;  but  Hengstenberg  has  made  it  probable 
that  from  the  beginning  the  chief  part  of  the  city  was  situated  on  the  island, 
or  rather  a  peninsula  connected  with  the  mainland  by  a  narrow  isthmus. 
(See  his  elaborate  and  masterly  tract,  De  llehus  Tj/riurum,  Berlin,  1832). 
The  name  T'ohrtiirus  (Old  Tyre),  given  by  the  ancient  writers  to  the  con- 
tinental city,  he  supposes  to  have  come  into  use  after  that  part  of  Tyre  was 
destroyed,  and  while  the  other  was  still  standing.  Tyre  is  remarkable  in 
history  for  two  things  :  its  maritime  trade,  and  the  many  sieges  it  has 
undergone.  The  first  of  these  on  record  was  by  Shalmaneser  king  of 
Assyria,  who,  according  to  Menander,  a  historian  now  lost,  but  quoted  by 
Josephus,  blockaded  Tyre  for  five  years,  so  as  to  cut  otf  the  supply  of  water 
fi-om  the  mainland,  but  without  being  able  to  reduce  the  city.  The  next 
was  by  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon,  who  besieged  it  thirteen  years ; 
with  what  result  is  not  expressly  mentioned  either  in  profane  or  sacred  his- 
tory. A  third  siege  was  by  Alexander  the  Great,  who,  after  seven  months 
and  with  the  utmost  difiiculty,  finally  reduced  it.  It  was  afterwards  be- 
sieged by  the  Syrian  king  Antigonus,  and  more  than  once  during  the 
Crusades,  both  by  Franks  and  Saracens.  After  this  period  it  entirely  de- 
cayed, and  has  now  disappeared,  its  site  being  marked  by  the  insulated 
rock,  by  the  causeway  between  it  and  the  mainland  still  existing  as  a  bar 
of  sand,  and  b}'  columns  and  other  architectural  remains  mostly  lying 
under  water. 

It  has  been  much  disputed  which  of  these  events  is  the  subject  of  the 
prophecy  before  us.  Grotius,  as  usual,  sees  the  fulfilment,  in  the  days  of 
Isaiah  himself,  and  refers  the  prediction  to  the  siege  by  Shalmaneser. 
Clericus  gives  it  a  wider  scope,  and  seems  to  make  the  siege  by  Alexander 
its  main  subject.  But  the  great  body  of  the  older  ^vTiters  refer  it  to  an 
intermediate  event,  the  siege  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  arguments  in 
favour  of  this  application  are  stated  with  great  learning,  force,  and  clear- 
ness, by  Vitringa  on  the  passage. 

The  German  writers  of  the  new  school  are  divided  on  this  question. 
Eichhorn,  Kosenmiiller,  Hitzig,  and  others,  admit  the  reference  to  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, but  ascribe  the  prophecy  of  course  to  a  contemporary  writer. 
Gesenius,  Maurer,  Umbreit,  and  Ivnobel,  admit  its  genuineness,  but  refer 
it  to  the  siege  by  Shalmaneser.  Hendewerk  also  admits  the  genuineness 
ot  the  passage,  but  denies  its  having  reference  to  any  particular  historical 
event.  •  Ewald  refers  it  to  the  siege  of  Shalmaneser,  but  infers  from  the 
inferiority  of  the  style  that  it  may  be  the  production  of  a  younger  contem- 
porary and  disciple  of  Isaiah.  The  discussion  of  the  subject  by  these 
writers  is  in  one  respect  interesting  and  instructive.  In  most  other  cases 
they  occupy  common  ground  against  the  truth.  But  here  they  are  reduced 
to  a  dilemma,  and  by  choosing  ditlerent  bonis  of  it.  are  placed  in  opposi- 
tion to  each  other,  clearly  betraying,  in  the  conflict  that  ensues,  the  real 
value  of  their  favourite  style  of  ^criticism.  Thus  while  Ewald  thinks  the 
style  unlike  that  of  Isaiah,  and  Eichhorn,  and  Hitzig  see  the  clearest  indi- 
cations of  a  later  age,  Gesenius  and  Hendewerk  are  struck  with  the  tokens 
of  antiquity  and  with  the  characteristics  of  Isaiah.  So,  too,  with  respect  to 
the  literary  merit  of  the  passage  :  Hitzig  treats  it  almost  with  contempt, 


ISAIAH  xxni.  Boa 

while  Hendewerk  extols  it  as  a  masterpiece  of  eloquence.  There  could  not 
be  a  stronger  illustration  of  the  fact,  already  evident,  that  the  boasted 
diagnosis  of  this  school  of  critics  is  alwaj's  dependent  on  a  foregone  con- 
clusion. Had  there  been  no  siege  of  IVre  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  Gesenius 
would  easily  have  found  abundant  proofs  that  the  chapter  was  of  later 
date.  But  this  not  being  necessary  for  his  purpose  here,  he  treats  as  in- 
conclusive even  stronger  proofs  than  those  which  he  himself  employs  in 
other  cases. 

To  the  reference  of  this  prophecy  to  Shalmaneser  there  are  two  main 
objections.  The  first  is  the  express  mention  of  the  Chaldees  in  ver.  13. 
Ewald  easily  disposes  of  this  difficulty  bj'  reading  D*jyJ3  instead  of  DHE^D. 
Gesenius  and  the  rest  maintain  that  the  Chaldees  are  mentioned  only  as 
tributaries  or  auxiliaries  of  Assyria.  As  this,  though  arbitrarily  assumed, 
is  not  impossible,  the  first  objection  cannot  be  regarded  as  decisive.  The 
second  is  that  Shalmaueser's  attempt  upon  Tyre  was  perfectly  abortive. 
This  argument  of  course  has  no  eftect  upon  Gesenius  and  others  who  deny 
the  inspiration  of  the  Prophet.  Even  such,  however,  must  admit  that  if  the 
descriptions  of  the  prophecy  were  actually  realised  in  another  case,  it  is 
more  likely  to  have  been  the  one  intended.  They  allege,  however,  that  the 
very  same  objection  lies  against  the  supposition  of  a  reference  to  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, on  the  ground  that  no  historian,  sacred  or  profane,  records  the  fact 
of  his  having  taken  Tyre.  To  account  for  this  omission,  and  to  shew  by 
various  incidental  proofs  that  the  event  did  nevertheless  happen,  is  the 
main  design  of  Hengstenberg's  tract  already  mentioned,  in  which  he  has 
performed  his  task  with  a  rare  combination  of  minute  learning,  ingenuity, 
and  good  sense,  although  not  to  the  satisfaction  of  contemporary  German 
writers.  His  argument  from  the  nature  of  the  case  turns  in  a  great  measure 
on  minute  details,  and  sometimes  on  intricate  calculations  in  chronology. 
It  will  be  sufficient  therefore  to  record  the  result,  which  is  that  the  actual 
conquest  of  Tyre  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  even  leaving  out  of  view  the  prophecy 
before  us,  and  the  more  explicit  one  in  Ezekiel,  chap,  xxvi.,  is  much  more 
probable  than  the  contrary  hypothesis.  But  there  is  still  another  difficulty 
in  the  way  of  applying  the  prophecy  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  siege  and  con- 
quest. Isaiah  intimates  and  Ezekiel  explicitly  foretells  an  entire  desolation 
of  Tyre,  which  did  not  take  place  till  the  Middle  Ages.  Hengstenberg's 
solution  of  this  difficulty  is,  that  the  prophets  constantly  connect  the  imme- 
diate consequences  of  the  events  which  they  predict  with  their  remoter  and 
more  gradual  results.  On  the  same  general  principal  of  interpretation,  but  • 
with  a  diti'erence  of  form,  it  may  be  said  that  the  prophecy  before  us  is 
generic,  not  specific,  a  panoramic  picture  of  the  downfall  of  Tyre,  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  the  destroying  process,  with  particular  allusion  to 
particular  sieges,  as  for  instance  to  that  of  the  Chaldees  in  ver.  13,  and 
perhaps  to  that  of  Alexander  in  ver.  G.  Antiquarian  research  and  discover)' 
may  yet  bring  to  light  coincidences  still  more  striking. 

While  the  great  majority  of  writers  understand  the  passage  as  referring 
to  the  literal  Tj're,  a  few  prefer  to  take  it  in  a  mystical  sense.  Some  of 
the  older  Jewish  writers  say  that  whenever  the  literal  Tyre  is  meant,  the 
name  is  fully  written  C^^*),  but  that  when  it  is  defectively  written,  as  it  is 
here,  ("1^')  it  signifies  Rome.  Abarbenel  refutes  this  dictum  by  shewing 
that  both  forms  occur  in  the  same  context, '.but  himself  makes  Tyre  here 
mean  Venice.  But  these  hypotheses  are  modest  in  comparison  with  that  of 
Cocceius,  who  understands  by  Tyro  the  Church  of  Rome,  by  Egypt  Ger- 
many, by  Chittim  Spain,  by  Tarshish  France,  by  Assyria  Tm'key,  by  the 


yO^  ISAIAH  XXIII.  |Yer.  1,  2. 

land  of  the  Chaldees  Hungary,  and  by  the  whole  passage  a  chapter  from 
the  history  of  the  Reformation.  Of  such  interpretations  it  may  surely  be 
said  without  undue  severity:  "  Harioktiones  hse  suut ;  sequamur  ceita; 
incerta  a^quo  animo  ignortmus  ;  ncque  etiam  banc  prophetiam  cum  quibus- 
dam  veterum  allegorice  iuterpretabimur,  nam  si  Scriptura  uon  indicet  debere 
nos  in  re  una  cernere  imagiuem  alterius,  eliamsi  res  divcrsa3  a  Scriptura 
cxphcatie  simililudinem  et  couformitatem  aliquam  haboaut,  non  possumus 
tamen  asserere  hoc  illius  typum  et  figuram  esse,  nisi  quatenus  ilia  confor- 
mitas  ex  Scripturarum  comparatione  demonstratur.'  These  arc  the  words 
of  Cocceius  himself,  reproviug  Grotius  for  his  groundless  hypothesis  of 
Shebna's  leprosy  in  chap,  xsii.,  and  declaring  his  own  dissent  from  the  old 
interpretations  of  that  chapter. 

1.  The  burden  of  Tyre.  Houi,  ships  of  Tarshish  ;for  it  is  laid  iia.ste,  no 
house,  no  entrance  ;  from  the  land  of  Chitlim  it  is  revealed  to  them.  Here, 
as  in  chap.  xiii.  1,  xv.  1,  xvii,  1,  xix.  1,  xxi.  1,  xi.  13,  xxii.  1,  there 
is  not  the  slightest  reason  for  rejecting  the  first  words  as  the  addition  of  a 
copyist  or  compiler.  The  command  or  exhortation  to  hov.l  implies  that 
those  to  whom  it  is  addressed  have  peculiar  cause  for  grief.  By  ships  of 
Tarshish  we  are  not  to  understand  merchant  ships  in  general,  but  strictly 
those  which  carried  on  the  trade  between  Phenicia,  and  its  Spanish  colony 
Tartessus.  For  the  other  meanings  which  have  been  attached  to  t^'"'ti'lrl, 
vide  supra,  chap.  ii.  15.  Ilosenmiiller  condemns  the  generic  explanation  of 
the  phrase  as  uupoetical,  but  does  not  scruple  to  make  ships  mean  sailors, 
which  is  wholly  unnecessary.  The  masculine  form  T!!^'  may  either  be  re- 
ferred to  1^  by  a  common  licence,  or  indeiinitely  taken  to  mean  desolation 
has  been  Krought,  or  something  has  been  desolated,  without  saying  what. 
Ewald  resolves  it  into  an  indefinite  active  verb  (zerstort  hat  man)  without 
a  change  of  meaning.  The  preposition  in  n^.Iip  and  J<13P  has  a  privative 
efiect.  The  meaning  strictly  is,  auay  from  house,  au-ay  from  entrance.  It 
may  be  le^s  concisively  rendered,  so  that  there  is  no  house.  Sec.  Some 
make  the  two  expressions  strictly  parallel  and  correlative,  so  that  there  is 
neither  house  nor  entrance,  in  which  case  the  latter  may  have  reference  to 
the  entering  of  ships  into  the  harbour.  Others  make  the  second  dependent 
on  tl.e  first,  .so  tliat  there  is  no  house  left  to  enter.  This  may  refer  particu- 
larly to  the  mariners  returning  from  their  long  voyage  and  finding  their 
homes  destroyed.  Chittim  is  neither  Macedonia  (Clericus),  Italy  (Yitiinga), 
Susiana  (Bochart),  Cilicia  (Junius),  nor  a  region  in  Arabia  (Ilcnsler),  but 
the  island  of  Cyprus  (Josephus),  in  which  there  was  a  city  Citium,  which 
Cicero  explicitly  refers  to  as  a  Phenician  settlement.  The  wider  explanation 
of  the  name,  as  denoting  other  islands  or  the  Mediterranean  coasts  in  gene- 
ral, though  not  without  authority  from  usage,  is  uncertain  and  in  this  case 
needless.  These  words  are  connected  with  what  goes  before  by  Calvin  (ut 
non  sit  commcatus  e  terra  Cittim)  and  others  ;  but  most  mterpreters  adhere 
to  the  Masoretic  interpunction.  It  is  revealed  (/.  e.  the  event  announced  in 
the  preceding  clause)  to  them  (the  Tyrian  mariners  on  their  way  home  from 
Tarshish).  The  meaning  seems  to  be,  that  the  news  of  the  fall  of  Tyre  has 
reached  the  Phenician  settlements  in  Cyprus,  and  through  them  the  Tyrian 
mariners  that  touch  there. 

2.  JJe  silent,  ()  inhabitants  of  the  isle  (or  coast),  the  merchants  of  Sldon 
crossing  the  sea  filled  thee.  This  may  either  be  addressed  to  the  coast  and 
islands  of  the  Mediterranean  which  had  long  been  frequented  by  the  Pheni- 
cian traders,  or  to  Phenicia  itself,  which  foreign  commerce  had  enriclied. 
The  last  explanation  is  commonly  preferred ;  but  the  fii'st  is  recommended 


Ver.  3-5.]  ISAIAH  XXIII.  395 

by  the  fact  that  it  assigns  a  reason  for  the  mention  of  the  foreign  trade  of 
Sidon,  as  accounting  for  the  interest  which  other  nations  are  supposed  to 
feel  in  the  fall  of  Tyre.  On  either  supposition,  Sidon,  the  other  great  city 
of  Phenicia,  is  put  for  the  whole  country.  The  plural  verb  in  the  last 
clause  agi'ees  with  "IHD  as  a  collective. 

3.  And  in  great  toaters  [was)  the  seed  of  the  Nile;  the  harvest  of  the  river 
l^was)  her  revenue ;  and  she  ivas  a  mart  of  nations.  "iHii'  and  "i"li<;  are  the 
Hebi'esv  and  Egyptian  names  of  the  Nile.  The  first,  according  to  its  ety- 
mology, means  Mack,  and  corresponds  to  Mj?va5  and  3telo,  Greek  and 
Latin  names  of  the  same  river,  all  derived  from  the  colour  of  the  water  or 
the  mud  which  it  deposits.  The  use  of  the  word  in'.i'  is  one  of  the  proofs, 
adduced  by  Eichhorn  and  RosenmuUer,  that  the  chapter  is  of  later  date. 
It  is  true  the  name  occurs  in  Joshua  xiii.  13 ;  but  that  is  also  classed 
among  the  later  books.  Gesenius  observes,  however,  that  an  inference  can 
hardly  be  drawn  from  one  or  two  examples.  Of  the  whole  verse  there  are 
three  interpretations.  The  first  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  fact  that  the 
grain  of  Egypt  was  exported  in  Phenician  vessels  on  the  great  luaters,  i.  e. 
over  the  sea.  The  objection  that  Phenicia  is  described  by  Ezekiel  as 
trading  not  with  Egypt  but  with  Palestine  in  grain,  though  entitled  to 
some  weight,  is  not  conclusive.  A  stronger  objection  may  be  drawn  from 
the  apparent  incongruity  of  naming  this  one  branch  of  commerce  as  a  proof 
that  Tyre  was  a  mart  of  nations.  A  second  interpretation  understands 
what  is  said  of  Egypt  figuratively,  or  as  a  comparison ;  as  if  he  had  said 
that  the  wealth  which  Egypt  derived  from  the  Nile,  Phenicia  derived  from 
the  great  waters,  i.e.  by  her  maritime  trade.  The  third  differs  from  this 
only  by  supposing  a  distinct  allusion  to  the  insular  situation  of  Tyre, 
which,  though  planted  on  a  rock  and  girt  by  many  waters,  reaped  as  rich  a 
harvest  as  the  fertile  land  of  Egypt.  This  last  interpretation,  which  is 
that  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Hengstenberg,  is  much  more  poetical  than 
either  of  the  others,  and  at  least  in  that  respect  entitled  to  the  preference. 

4.  Be  ashamed  (or  confounded),  Zidon  ;  for  the  sea  saith,  the  strength  of 
the  sea,  saying,  I  hare  not  travailed,  and  I  have  not  home,  and  I  have  not 
reared  young  men  (or)  brought  up  virgins.  One  of  the  great  cities  of 
Phenicia  is  here  called  upon  to  be  confounded  at  the  desolation  of  the 
other ;  or  Zidon  may  be  put  for  the  whole  country,  as  in  the  preceding 
verse.  The  Targum  gives  to  C  its  geographical  sense  of  tvest  (X^iyo). 
Some  writers  understand  the  sea  itself  as  the  ideal  speaker,  and  explain 
Tiyo  as  an  allusion  to  the  turret-like  appearance  of  the  waves  when  in  com- 
motion. The  correct  view  of  the  case  seems  to  be  this  :  the  Prophet  hears 
a  voice  from  the  sea,  which  he  then  describes  more  exactly  as  coming  from 
the  stronghold  or  fortress  of  the  sea,  /.  e.  insular  Tyre  as  viewed  from  the 
mainland.  The  rest  of  the  verse  is  intended  to  express  the  idea  that  the 
city  thus  personified  was  childless,  was  as  if  she  had  never  borne  children. 
Here,  as  in  chap.  i.  2,  Hendewerk  takes  ""ripoi"!  in  the  sense  of  exalting, 
making  great,  which  is  at  once  a  violation  of  usage  and  of  the  Prophet's 
metaphor.  Interpreters  are  commonly  agreed  that  the  negative  force  of  the 
last  5<?  extends  to  both  of  the  following  verbs.  Cocceius  alone  seems  to 
to  make  the  last  clause  affirmative  [nan  educavi  juvenes ;  extuli  virgines) 
as  if  she  were  complaining  that  she  had  not  borne  sons,  but  daughters. 
But  the  whole  metaphor  is  clearly  intended  to  express  the  idea  of  depopu- 
lation. 

5.    Wlien  the  report  {comes)  to  Egypt,  they  are  pained  at  the  report  of 
Tyre.     There  are  three  distinct  interpretations  of  this  verse.     The  first 


396  ISAIAH  XXni.  [Yer.  G,  7. 

refers  v^H*  to  the  Sidonians  or  Pheuicians  generally,  and  understands  the 
verse  to  mean  that  they  would  be  as  much  grieved  to  hear  of  the  fall  of 
Tyre  as  if  they  should  hear  of  that  of  Egypt.  The  second  makes  the  verb 
indefinite,  or  understands  it  of  the  nations  generally,  who  are  then  said 
to  be  as  much  astounded  at  the  fall  of  Tyre,  as  they  once  were  at  the 
judgments  of  Jehovah  upon  Egypt.  The  third,  which  is  the  one  now 
commonly  adopted,  makes  Egypt  itself  or  the  Egyptians  the  subject  of 
the  verb,  and  explains  3  and  "IK^ND  as  particles  of  time,  not  of  comparison. 
The  first  of  these  senses  is  expressed  by  Vitringa  {utfama  de  Egypto  com- 
moveret  animos,  sic  dulthunt  ad  famam  Tyri),  the  second  by  Luther 
{gleichwie  man  crschrak  da  man  von  Egypten  hureie,  also  tvird  man 
erschrechcn  wenn  man  von  Tynis  huren  wird),  the  third  by  the  Vulgate 
{cum  auditum  fuerit  in  Egypto,  dolehunt  cum  audient  de  Tyro).  This 
last  supposes  the  Egyptians  to  lament  for  the  loss  of  their  great  mart  and 
commercial  ally.  The  idea  expressed  by  the  second  construction  is  a 
much  more  elevated  one,  and  it  seems  more  agreeable  to  usage  to  take 
3  before  a  noun  as  a  particle  of  comparison.  {Vide  supra,  chap,  xviii.  4.) 
*lCfX3  equally  admits  of  either  explanation.  Either  of  these  interpretations 
appears  preferable  to  the  first,  which  yields  an  unnatural  and  inappropriate 
sense. 

6.  Pass  over  to  Tarshish ;  howl,  ye  inhabitants  of  the  isle  {or  coad). 
The  mother  country  is  exhorted  to  take  refuge  in  her  distant  colonies.  J. 
D.  Michaelis  compares  the  resolution  of  the  Dutch , merchants  in  1672  to 
remove  to  Batavia  if  the  mother  country  could  not  be  delivered.  Accord- 
ing to  Diodorus,  Curtius,  and  Justin,  the  Tyrians  when  besieged  by  Alex- 
ander, sent  their  old  men,  women,  and  children,  to  Carthage.  Aben  Ezra 
gratuitously  makes  '''<  a  collective,  and  supposes  the  address  to  be  to  all 
the  islands  where  the  Tyrians  traded. 

7.  Is  tlii.s  your  joyous  city  (literally,  is  this  to  you  a  joyous  one)?  from 
the  days  of  old  is  her  antiquity ;  her  feet  shall  carry  her  afar  off  to  sojourn. 
Some  adopt  a  relative  construction,  and  continue  the  interrogation  through 
the  verse  ;  xvhosc  feet,  &c.  Of  those  who  read  the  sentence  thus,  some  un- 
derstand the  last  clause  as  descriptive  of  the  colonial  and  commercial 
activity  of  Tyre.  But  this  requires  •17''3T'  to  be  arbitrarily  explained  as  a 
preterite.  Most  writers  understand  the  clause  as  applying,  either  to  the 
flight  of  the  Tyrians  to  their  colonies,  or  to  their  being  carried  into  exile. 
To  the  fii'st,  Gesenius  objects  that  they  could  not  cross  the  sea  on  foot. 
Umbreit  replies  that  they  must  have  feet  to  go  on  board  the  ships.  Kuobel 
rejoins  that  in  that  case  it  would  not  be  their  feet  that  carried  them  far 
oli'.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  either,  that  a  city  can  no  more 
cross  the  sea  in  ships  than  dry-shod  ;  that  the  verse  contains  a  bold  per- 
sonification ;  and  that  having  once  converted  Tyre  into  a  woman,  the 
writer  may  naturally  represent  her  as  going  anywhire  on  foot,  without 
respect  to  the  actual  method  of  conveyance  used  by  individual  emigrants. 
Grotius  avoids  the  difficulty  mentioned  by  Gesenius,  by  making  feet  mean 
sails  and  oars.  The  epithet  HTvy  has  reference  to  the  bustle  of  commercial 
enterprise,  and  also  to  the  luxury  and  pride  of  Tyre.  Hendewerk  refers  to 
the  use  of  this  word  in  chap.  xxii.  2,  as  an  incidental  proof  that  Isaiah 
wrote  both  chapters.  The  resemblance  between  ^'^1?.  and  D"li^  is  imitated 
by  Gesenius  in  his  version  {Ursprung  and  Urzcit).  These  expressions 
may  be  referred  either  to  the  real  antiquity  of  Tyre,  or  to  the  exaggerated 
boastings  of  the  Tyrians,  of  which  we  have  examples  in  Herodotus  and 
other  profane  writers. 


Ver.  8-11.]  ISAIAH  XXIII.  397 

8.  Who  hath  purposed  thix  ayainst  Tyre  the  crowniiir/  {city),  whosp  mer- 
chants (are)  prhices,  her  traffickers  the  honoured  of  the  earth  !  The  Vulgate 
gives  HTtsyo  a  passive  sense  {quondam  coronatam),  which  Sanctius  applies 
to  the  pinnacles  and  turrets  of  the  city.  Hitzig  makes  it  mean  the  croivn- 
wearer.  Most  writers  seem  to  be  agreed  that  it  denotes  the  croinier  or 
crou-u-gher,  in  allusion  to  the  fact  that  crowned  heads  were  among  the  tri- 
butaries of  Phenicia,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  historians. 
Gesenius  refers  to  the  oriental  crowns  dispensed  by  the  East  India  Com- 
pany, and  to  the  crown  of  Corsica  once  subject  to  the  Genoese  Republic. 
He  also  illustrates  the  use  of  the  name  Canaan  to  denote  a  trader,  by  the 
analogous  usage  of  Chaldean  for  astrologer,  and  that  of  Su-i<is,  Savoyard, 
Jeic,  in  modern  parlance,  to  denote  certain  calhngs  or  professions.  The 
question  in  this  verse  implies  that  no  ordinary  power  could  have  done  it. 
The  sense  of  rich  which  Gesenius  gives  to  n233  in  this  place  is  entirely 
arbitrary.  That  of  land,  which  some  writers  put  instead  of  earth,  though 
it  does  not  change  the  sense  of  the  expression,  weakens  it. 

9.  Jehovah  of  hosts  hath  purposed  it,  to  profane  the  elevation  of  all  beauty, 
to  degrade  all  the  honoured  of  the  earth.  This  is  the  answer  to  the  question 
in  ver.  8.  The  suffix  in  nvy  refers  to  HNT.  The  supposition  of  a  chorus, 
or  of  choruses  responding  to  each  other,  is  gratuitous  and  artificial,  and 
better  suited  to  a  Greek  play  than  a  Hebrew  prophecy.  Not  only  in  poetry, 
but  in  animated  prose,  the  writers  of  all  languages  ask  questions  to  be 
answered  by  themselves.  ''3V  includes  all  that  was  splendid  and  beautiful 
in  Tyre.  The  exclusive  reference  of  the  word  to  the  people  can  be  justified 
by  nothing  but  the  parallelism,  and  even  that  will  admit  of  an  antithesis 
between  an  abstract  and  a  concrete  term.  ?7n  means  strictly  to  profane  or 
desecrate  that  which  is  reckoned  holy,  but  is  here  used  to  express  the  mak- 
ing common  of  that  which  was  distinguished  by  magnificence  or  beauty. 
The  force  of  the  antithesis  between  ^pi^  and  Dn3D3  cannot  be  fully  ex- 
pressed in  a  translation,  as  the  roots  respectively  mean  light  and  heavy. 
They  are  also  contrasted,  but  in  a  different  appUcation  and  connection,  in 
chap.  viii.  23. 

10.  Pass  through  thy  land  like  the  river  {Nile)  :  Daughter  of  Tarshish, 
there  is  no  girdle  {any)  longer.  Some  read,  pass  over  to  thy  land,  and  make 
the  verse  an  exhortation  to  the  strangers  from  Tartessus  to  go  home.  Others 
understand  "l'^''^  to  mean  as  {one  would  cross)  the  Nile  or  any  other  stream, 
i.  e.  naked  or  without  a  girdle,  as  in  the  other  clause.  It  is  commonly  agreed, 
however,  that  the  phrase  means,  as  the  Nile  passes,  i.  e.  quickly  or  without 
restraint.  Some  suppose  the  figure  to  be  still  continued  in  the  last  clause, 
and  take  HTO  in  the  sense  of  a  dam,  mound,  or  embankment.  Others,  giv- 
ing it  its  proper  sense  of  girdle,  apply  it  to  the  fortifications  of  Tyre  which 
were  now  dismantled.  The  daughter  of  Tarshish  is  not  T^'re,  nor  Phenicia 
now  considered  as  dependent  on  her  colonies  ;  nor  the  population  of  Tar- 
shish ;  but  Tarshish  itself.  There  is  no  more  girdle  may  be  taken  in  op- 
posite senses,  as  denoting  the  failure  of  strength  and  general  dissolution,  or 
the  absence  of  restraint  and  freedom  from  oppression.  The  former  is  pre- 
ferred by  Hengstenberg  ;  but  it  does  not  seem  appropriate  to  Tarshish, 
though  it  might  be  so  if  addressed  to  the  mother  country. 

11.  His  hand  he  stretched  out  over  the  sea  ;  he  made  kingdoms  tremble  ; 
Jehovah  commanded  respecting  Canaan  to  destroy  her  strongholds.  The  sub- 
ject of  the  verbs  in  the  first  clause  is  the  same  as  in  the  last.  The  stretching 
out  of  God's  hand,  followed  by  the  trembling  of  the  earth  or  its  inhabitants, 
is  m'ged  by  Hendewerk  as  a  favourite  expression  of  Isaiah  (see  particularly 


898  ISAIAH  XXIII.  [Ver.  12,  13. 

chap.  V.  25).  Eiclihorn  and  Hosenmiiller,  on  the  otLer  hand,  mnke  n^JTVD 
a  Chaldaism  and  a  proof  of  later  origin.  Gesenius  denies  that  there  is  any- 
thing analogous  in  Chaldee  or  Syriac  usage,  and  regards  it  as  either  an 
anomalous  case  of  epenthesis  or  an  orthographical  error.  The  feminine 
suffix  at  the  end  refers  to  Canaan  as  the  name  of  a  country. 

12.  And  he  said,  Thou  shall  not  add  longer  {or  continue)  to  triumj)h,  op- 
pressed {or  violated)  virgin  daughter  of  Zidon  ;  to  Chitiim  arise,  pats  over; 
there  also  there  shall  be  no  rest  to  thee.  The  address  is  not  to  Chittim  (or  the 
Macedonians) ;  nor  to  .Tyre  as  a  daughter  of  the  older  city  ;  hut  to  Zidon 
itself.  The  fact  that  ri>in?  is  in  apposition  with  ri3  (as  to  sense),  makes 
it  altogether  probable  that  r\2.  sustains  the  same  relation  to  pT'V.  The 
reading  IVV  02,  though  found  in  sixteen  manuscripts  and  several  ancient 
versions,  is  probably  a  mere  mistake,  arising  from  the  frequent  occurrence 
of  the  combination  elsewhere.  Zidon  is  here  put  for  Phenicia  in  general. 
n-1J^  is  impersonal.  This  exhortation  corresponds  exactly  to  the  one  in  ver.  6, 
Tarshish  and  Chittim  being  both  Pheniciau  colonies.  The  last  clause  im- 
plies, either  that  the  colonists  would  not  receive  them,  or  that  the  enemy 
would  still  pursue  them,  probably  the  latter.  The  figure  of  a  violated  virgin, 
for  a  conquered  city  or  country,  is  alleged  by  Eichhorn  as  a  proof  of  later 
origin  ;  hut  it  is  used  by  the  contemporary  prophet  Kahum  (iii.  5),  and  as 
Knobel  observes,  occurs  nowhere  else  in  Isaiah  because  he  nowhere  has 
occasion  to  employ  it. 

13.  Behold  the  land  of  the  Chaldees  ;  this  2^eo2ylc  was  not;  Assyria 
founded  it /or  dioellcrs  in  the  loilderness  ;  they  have  set  up  his  totvers  ;  they 
have  roused  up  her  palaces  ;  he  has  put  it  for  (or  rendered  it)  a  ruin.  This 
difiicult  verse  has  been  variously  understood.  Some  apply  it  exclusively  to 
the  destruction  of  Tyre  by  the  Assyrians  ;  but  this  can  only  be  effected  by 
an  arbitrary  charge  of  text.  Thus  J.  Olshausen  (in  his  emendations  of 
the  text  of  the  Old  Testament)  omits  the  words  from  X"^^  to  llfN  as  a  gloss, 
changes  C''^'  into  Cl"'''y,  and  explains  the  rest  to  mean  that  Assyria  con- 
verted Tyre  into  a  heap  of  ruins.  The  origin  of  the  gloss  he  supposes  to 
be  this,  that  some  one  wrote  upon  the  margin  by  way  of  correction,  X"^^ 
D'lti'3,  meaning  that  it  was  not  Assyria  but  Babylonia  that  destroyed  Tyre, 
and  then  added  more  explicitly,  H^n  N?  Dyn  HT,  all  which  afterwards  found 
its  way  into  the  text.  This  piece  of  criticism  is  too  extravagant  even  for 
the  Germans,  who  accordingly  reject  it  with  contempt.  Ewald,  however, 
also  tampers  with  the  text  by  reading  D^jy^j  for  D''^t^'^.  His  version  of  the 
whole  is  :  "  behold  the  land  of  the  Canaanites  (/.  e.  Phenicia) ;  this  nation 
is  no  more  ;  Assyria  has  converted  it  into  a  wilderness  ;  they  (the  Pheni- 
cians)  set  up  their  towers  (and)  build  their  palaces  ;  he  (the  Assyrian)  has 
turned  it  to  ruin."  Besides  the  arbitrary  change  of  text,  this  explanation 
gives  to  C^^'  and  1"i"iiy  senses  which  cannot  be  sustained  by  usage.  The 
great  majority,  both  of  the  older  and  the  later  writers,  leave  the  text  un- 
altered, and  suppose  that  the  Prophet  here  brings  the  Chaldees  into  view 
as  the  instruments  of  Tyre's  destruction.  The  words  from  Ht  to  D"^v  will 
then  be  a  parenthesis,  containing  an  allusion  to  a  historical  fact  not  ex- 
pressly mentioned  elsewhere,  but  agreeing  well  with  other  fiicts  of  history, 
viz.  that  the  Chaldees  were  not  the  aboriginal  inhabitants  of  Babylonia, 
but  were  brought  thither  from  the  mountains  of  Armenia  or  Kurdistan  by 
the  Assyrians  in  the  days  of  their  supremacy.  This  accounts  for  the  fact, 
that  Xenophon  speaks  of  the  Chaldees  as  northern  mountaineers,  wbile  in 
the  sacred  history  we  find  them  in  possession  of  the  gi'cat  plain  of  Shinar. 
The  former  statement  has  respect,  no  doubt,  to  that  portion  of  the  people 


Ver.  13. J  ISAIAH  XXIII.  39» 

who  were  left  behind  in  their  original  territory.  This  incidental  statenaent, 
it  ma}'  also  be  observed,  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  Assyrian  policy  of 
peopling  their  own  provinces  with  conqiiered  nations.  The  construction 
commonly  adopted,  by  interpreters  who  thus  explain  the  sentence,  is  as 
follows  :  "  Behold  the  land  of  the  Chaldees  ;  this  people  (the  people  now 
inhabiting  it)  was  not  (/.  e.  had  no  existence  until  lately)  ;  Assyria  founded 
(or  established)  it  (the  country)  for  dwellers  in  the  wilderness  (/.  e.  for  the 
Chal.lees  who  before  had  led  a  wild  nomadic  life)."  To  this  construction 
Knobel,  though  he  acquiesces  in  the  exposition  as  a  whole,  makes  twa 
objections  :  first,  that  while  it  explains  V"'5<  as  denoting  the  people,  it  refers 
the  suffix  in  HID^  to  the  country ;  secondly,  that  D^'V  is  really  descriptive 
of  the  Chaldees,  not  before  but  after  their  transportation  to  the  plains  of 
Babylonia.  Knobel  himself  refers  both  pX  and  the  suffix  to  the  people 
considered  as  possessors  of  the  land,  and  takes  ?  ID''  in  the  sense  of  ap- 
pointing, constituting,  as  in  Hab.  i.  12.  "  Behold  the  nation  of  the 
Chaldees ;  this  people  was  not  (/.  e.  was  unknown)  till  Assyria  changed 
them  into  inhabitants  of  the  wilderness  (or  plain)." — But  why  should  this 
history  of  the  Chaldees  be  referred  to  here  ?  The  answer  usually  given  to 
this  question  is,  because  the  recent  origin  and  present  insignificance  of  the 
chosen  instruments  made  the  conquest  more  humiliating  to  the  Tyrians. 
A  kindred  feeling  wou.ld  have  been  excited  in  the  ancient  Romans  by  a 
prediction  of  their  subjugation  and  destruction  by  the  Goths.  If  the 
reason  assigned  for  the  incidental  mention  of  the  Chaldee  migration  be  the 
true  one,  it  has  evidently  far  more  force  upon  the  supposition  that  the 
prophecj'  relates  to  the  Babylonian  conquest  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  than 
upon  the  supposition  that  it  relates  tq  the  attack  of  Shalmaneser.  Indeed, 
the  whole  assumption,  that  the  Chaldees  are  here  mentioned  as  auxiliaries 
only,  is  so  perfectly  arbitrary,  that  it  would  never  have  occurred  to  any 
writer,  who  had  not  determined  upon  other  grounds,  that  the  event  pre- 
dicted took  place  under  the  Assyrian  domination.  Even  Umbreit,  who 
assents  to  this  hj-pothesis,  admits  that  it  is  only  probable,  not  certain  ; 
and  that  this  verse  taken  by  itself  would  rather  prove  the  contrary,  by 
mentioning  the  Chaldees  as  the  principal  assailants,  and  Assyria  only  in 
a  parenthesis  containing  a  historical  allusion.  According  to  the  usual 
interpretation  which  has  now  been  given,  the  towers  mentioned  are  those 
used  in  ancient  sieges  ;  the  masculine  suffix  refers  to  D^;  ^^6  feminine 
suffix  to  Tyre  ;  and  "i!?iy  may  be  taken  either  in  the  sense  of  raising  (from 
"V^),  or  in  that  of  rousing  (from  l-iy),  that  is,  filling  with  confusion 
and  alarm.  Besides  the  interpretations  which  have  now  been  given, 
there  is  another  that  deserves  at  least  to  be  recorded.  Schleyer,  a 
recent  German  writer  on  this  prophecy  and  that  against  Babylon  in 
chaps,  xiii.  xiv.,  gives  the  same  sense  to  the  words  from  HT  to  "i^J^N  that 
is  put  upon  them  by  Olshausen,  but  instead  of  rejecting  them  as  a  mar- 
ginal correction,  retains  them  as  a  necessary  part  of  the  text.  "  Behold, 
the  nation  of  the  Chaldees ;  this  people  (it  was  not  Assyria)  has  assigned  it 
[i.  e.  Tyre)  to  the  dwellers  in  the  wilderness  {i.  e.  made  it  desolate).  Um- 
breit, without  dwelling  on  the  violation  of  the  Masoretic  accents,  objects  to 
this  interpretation,  that  it  fails  to  account  for  the  use  of  the  word  p5<  before 
Dn'ii'D,  but  especially  that  no  reason  can  be  given  for  the  negative  assertion 
that  it  was  not  Assyria  that  desolated  Tyre.  If  the  interpretation,  however, 
were  otherwise  tenable,  this,  so  far  from  being  an  objection,  would  in  fact 
recommend  it.  When  Isaiah  wrote,  Assyria  was  the  ruling  power  of  the 
world ;  whatever  changes  were  expected,  were  expected  fi'om  that  quarter. 


-100  ISAIAIJ  XXIII.  lVek.  14,  15. 

But  here  the  conquest  of  Phenicia  is  ascribed  to  a  people  then  but  little  known, 
if  known  at  all.  It  was  perfectly  natural  therefore  to  sa}-  negatively,  that  it 
was  not  to  be  effected  by  Assyria,  as  well  as  positively,  that  it  was  to  be 
effected  by  Chaldea.  In  like  manner  if  the  fall  of  the  Roman  State  had  been 
foretold  during  the  period  of  Ihe  Punic  wars,  how  naturally  would  the  pro- 
phet have  said  that  it  should  fall,  not  before  the  CartluKjinians,  but  before 
the  Goths.  The  sense  therefore  yielded  by  Schleyor's  construction  is  a 
good  sense  in  itself,  and  appropriate  to  the  context.  It  cannot,  however, 
be  affirmed  that  there  is  any  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the 
Masoretic  tradition  as  to  the  intorpunction  of  the  sentence.  But  lot  it  be 
observed,  that  on  either  of  these  suppositions,  the  reference  of  the  verse 
to  the  siege  of  Tyre  by  Nebuchadnezzar  is  far  more  natural  than  any  other. 

14.  Howl,  ships  of  Tarshish,  for  destroyed  is  your  stronghold.  The 
first  part  of  the  jirophecy  here  closes  very  much  as  it  began.  The  descrip- 
tion of  Tyre  is  the  same  as  in  ver.  4,  except  that  it  was  there  called  the 
fortress  of  the  sea,  and  here  the  fortress  of  the  Tyrian  ships. 

15.  And  it  sh(dl  eouie  to  pnss  in  that  day  that  Tyre  shall  he  forgotten 
seventy  years,  as  the  days  of  one  king;  from  the  end  of  seventy  years  shall 
he   (or    happen)    to    Tyre  like  the  harlot's  song.       The  remainder   of  the 

/  chapter  predicts  the  restoration  of  Tyre,  not  to  its  former  dignity,  but  to 
its  wealth  and  conmiercial  activity,  the  fruits  of  which  should  thenceforth 
be  consecrated  to  Jehovah.     There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  with  respect 

'  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  or  the  gi'ammatical  consti'uction  of  the  sen- 
tence ;  but  the  utmost  diversity  of  judgment  in  relation  to  the  general 
sense  and  application  of  the  whole,  and  especially  of  the  words,  seventy 
years  as  the  days  of  one  kin//.  Yitringa  and  others  take  the  seventy  years 
strictly.  Gesenius  and  the  later  German  writers  make  it  a  round  number, 
as  in  Gen.  1.  3,  Exod.  xv.  27,  xxiv.  1.  The  following  words  are  rejected 
by  Umbreit  as  a  gloss.  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Paulus  read  "IHX  (another) 
for  *in?<  (one).  Grotius  reads  seren  for  seventy,  forgetting  that  the  fol- 
lowing noun  must  then  be  in  the  plural,  and  assuming  that  Shalmaneser 
reigned  seven  years,  or  was  seven  years  at  Tyre.  Jarchi  understands  by 
the  one  king.  l)avid,  who  died  at  the  age  of  threescore  and  ten,  though  he 
cannot  explain  why  it  should  be  here  referred  to.  Kimchi  suggests  that 
it  may  be  in  allusion  to  the  treaty  bcitween  David  and  Hiram,  the  breach 
of  which  was  the  occasion  of  this  judgment.  Kimchi  prefers,  however,  to 
explain  the  words  as  a  description  of  the  ordinary  length  of  human  life, 
in  which  he  is  followed  by  Gesenius  and  Maurer,  who  account  for  the 
mention  oi  one  king  rather  than  one  man,  upon  the  ground  that  kings  and 
kingdoms  are  the  subject  of  the  prophecy.  The  same  interpretation  is 
suggested  by  the  double  version  of  the  Septuagint  (w;  %f'>>'0S  j^aaiXiu;,  ug 
yjJMc  dvd^ujTrou),  which  is  found  in  all  the  manuscripts,  though  some  modern 
critics  reckon  only  part  of  it  as  genuine,  Gesenius  considering  the  first 
phrase  as  an  emendation  of  the  second,  Rosenmiiller  the  second  as  a  later 
explanation  of  the  first.  Hitzig  pretends  that  this  form  of  expression  was 
borrowed  from  Jeremiah's  expectation  that  Zedekiah  was  to  be  restored  at 
the  end  of  seventy  years.  Movers  supposes  that  the  things  compared  are 
not  two  periods  of  time,  but  two  cases  of  oblivion,  and  understands  the 
clause  as  meaning  that  Tyre  should  be  forgotten  as  completel}'  as  Jehoahaz 
and  his  three  months"  reign.  Henderson,  more  generally,  makes  the  sense 
to  be  that  Tyre  should  be  forgotten  as  completely  as  a  king  when  he  is 
dead,  in  illustration  of  which  general  fact  he  strangely  cites  the  case  of 
Napoleon.     Ivnobel  understands  the  verse  to  mean  that  the  oblivion  of  Tyre 


Yek.  16.]  ISAIAH  XXIIL  401 

for  a  time  should  be  as  fixed  and  unalterable  as  the  decrees  of  an  oriental 
monarch  during  his  own  reign.    Eichhorn  and  Ewald  understand  the  phrase 
as  opposite  in  meaning  to  the  one  employed  in  chap.  xvi.  14,  xxi.  16.     As 
the  years  of  a  hireling  mean  years  computed  strictty,  so  the  days  of  a  king 
may  mean  days  computed  freely.     Hengstenberg,  without  attempting  to 
explain  the  phrase    (quomodcunque   ilia  explicentur),   understands   it   to 
imply  that  seventy  years  is  here  to  be  indefinitely  understood,  and  carefully 
distinguished  from  the  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah  and  from  the  other  speci- 
fications of  time  contained  in  the  writings  of  Isaiah  himsel|f.     Those,  on  the 
other  hand,  who  give  the  words  their  strict  sense,  for  the  most  part  follow 
Aben  Ezra  and  Yitringa  in  supposing  that  the  reigns  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
and  his  successors  are  here  computed  as  one.     It  is  no  sufficient  answer  to 
say  that  "^79  never  means  a  dynasty.     That  idea  may  of  course  be  implied 
even  if  it  is  not  expressed.     The  chronological  hypothesis  of  this  interpreta- 
tion has,  however,  been  denied  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who  puts  the  end  of  the 
prescribed  term  thirty-three  or  four  years  later  than  the  fall  of  Babylon. 
That  Tyre  was  a  flourishing  city  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  is  mat- 
ter of  history.     When  it  again  became  so,  is  not.     But  since  the  fact  is 
certain  and  the  prophecy  exphcit,  the  most  rational  conclusion  is  that  they 
chronologically  coincide,  or  in  other  words,  that  Tyre  did  begin  to  recover 
from  the  eflects  of  the  Babylonian  conquest  about  seventy  years  after  the 
catastrophe  itself.     This  of  course  supposes  that  the  words  are  to  be  defi- 
nitely understood.     If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  indefinite,  there  can  be 
still  less  difticulty  in  supposing  their  fulfilment.     In  either  case,  the  words 
ins  "|7D  ''JD''2  remain  so  enigmatical,  and   all  the  explanations  of  them  so 
unsatisfactoiy,  that  some  may  be  tempted  to  refer  them  to  the  future,  and  to 
look  for  their  development  hereafter.    Hengstenberg' s  view  of  the  connection 
between  this  prediction  of  Isaiah  and  the  parallel  prophecies  of  Ezekiel 
(chaps.  xx\'i.  and  xxvii.)  and  Zechariah  (chap  ix.)  is  this,  that  the  last  should 
be  regarded  as  a  supplement  or  sequel  to  the  other  two.     When  Zechariah 
wrote,  the  Babylonian  conquest  predicted  by  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel  had  already 
taken  place.    The  change  for  the  better,  predicted  by  Isaiah  alone,  was  then 
alrfeady  visible.     The  prophecies  of  both  respecting  the  total  destruction  of 
the  city  af§  renewed  by  Zechariah,  and  referred  to  a  period  still  future,  with 
particular  reference,  as  Hengstenberg  supposes,  to  the  time  of  Alexander, 
but  it  may  be  with  a  scope  still  more  extensive. — The  last  clause  foretells 
the  restoration  of  Tyre  in  a  very  pecuhar  and  significant  form.     Instead  of 
a  queen  reinstated  on  the  throne,  she  now  appears  as  a  forgotten  harlot, 
suing  once  more  for  admiration  and  reward.    Although  this  metaphor,  as  we 
shall  see  below,  does  not  necessarily  imply  moral  turpitude,  it  does  neces- 
sarily impart  a  contemptuous  tone  to  the  prediction.     The  best  explanation 
of  tliis  change  of  tone  is  not,  as  Eichhorn  imagined,  that  these  verses  are  a 
later  addition,  but  that  the  restoration  here  predicted  was  to  be  a  restora- 
.  tion  to  commercial  prosperity  and  wealth,  but  not  to  regal  dignity  or  national 
importance.     The  song  of  a  harlot  (or  the  harlot)  is  now  commonly  agreed 
to  mean  a  particular  song  well  known  to  the  contemporaries  of  the  Prophet. 
It  shall  be  to  her  like  this  song  can  only  mean  that  what  the  song  presents 
as  an  ideal  situation  should  be  reaHsed  in  the  experience  of  Tyre.     The 
Hebrew  words  will  scarcely  bear  the  meaning  put  upon  them  in  the  text  of 
the  English  Yersion. 

16.  Take  a  harp,  go  about  the  city,  0 forgotten  harlot;  play  well,  sing 
much,  that  thou  mayest  be  remembered.  These  are  now  commonly  explained 
as  the  words  of  the  song  itself,  describing  the  only  way  in  which  the  harlot 

VOL.  I.  c  c 


402  ISAIAH  XXIV.  [Yer.  17,  18. 

could  recover  her  lost  place  in  the  memory  of  men,  viz.,  by  soliciting  their 
notice  and  their  favour.  The  application  of  the  song  to  Tyre  implies  not 
only  that  she  had  lost  her  former  position  in  the  sight  of  the  nations,  but 
that  exertion  would  be  needed  to  recover  it.  The  literal  meaning  of  the 
words  translated  p/ff?/  tvell,  siny  much,  is  make  (jood  playinrj,  multiply  song. 
See  Gesenius,  §  189,  1. 

17.  And  it  shall  he  (or  co7ne  to  j)0.ss),from  (or  at)  the  end  of  seventy 
years,  Jehovah  will  visit  Tyre,  and  she  shall  return  to  her  hire  (or  (jain), 
and  shall  phiy  the  harlot  with  all  the  kingdoms  rf  the  earth  upon  the  face 
of  the  ground.  As  God  is  said  to  visit  men  both  in  wrath  and  mercy,  and 
as  the  figure  here  employed  is  at  first  sight  a  revolting  one,  some  of  the 
older  writers  understand  this  verse  as  describing  the  continued  wickedness  of 
Tyre  requiring  further  judgments.  But  this  makes  it  necessary  to  explain 
the  next  verse  as  referring  to  a  still  remoter  future,  which  is  done  by  in- 
serting tandem  or  the  like  at  the  beginning.  It  is  evident,  however,  from  the 
repetition  of  the  word  njjnx  in  the  next  verse,  that  the  prediction  there  has 
reference  to  the  very  course  of  conduct  here  described.  From  this  again 
the  inference  is  plain,  that  notwithstanding  the  apparent  import  of  the  figure, 
the  conduct  is  not  in  itself  unlawful.  The  figure  indeed  is  now  commonly 
agreed  to  denote  nothing  more  than  commercial  intercourse  without  neces- 
sarily implying  guilt.  In  ancient  times,  w-hen  international  commerce  was 
a  strange  thing  and  nearly  monopolized  by  a  single  nation,  and  especially 
among  the  Jews,  whose  law  discom-aged  it  for  wise  but  temporary  purposes, 
there  were  probably  ideas  attached  to  such  promiscuous  intercourse  entirely 
different  from  our  own.  Certain  it  is  that  the  Scriptures  more  than  once 
compare  the  mutual  solicitations  of  commercial  enterprise  to  illicit  love. 
That  the  comparison  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  idea  of  unlawful  or 
dishonest  trade,  is  snfiiciently  apparent  from  the  following  verse. 

18.  And  her  gain  and  her  hire  fhall  he  holiness  (or  holy,  i.  e.  consecrated) 
to  Jehovah  ;  it  shall  not  be  stored  and  it  shall  not  he  hoarded;  for  her  gain 
shall  be  for  those  who  sit  (or  dwell)  before  Jehovah,  to  eat  to  satiety,  and  for 
substantial  clothing.  By  those  who  dwell  before  Jehovah  we  are  probably 
to  understand  his  worshippers  in  general  and  his  official  servants  in 
particular.  Henderson's  objection,  that  the  priests  were  not  allowed  to  sit 
in  the  temple,  is  applicable  only  to  the  primary  meaning  of  the  verb. 
There  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  chambers  around  the  temple  which  were 
occupied  by  priests  and  Levites  when  in  actual  service.  P'^^V,  according  to 
the  Arabic  analogy,  means  ancient  as  an  epithet  of  praise,  and  is  accord- 
ingly resolved  by  the  modern  writers  into  fine  or  splendid.  The  older 
interpreters  deduced  perhaps  from  the  same  original  idea  that  of  durable, 
substantial,  wearing  long  and  well.  The  latter  agrees  better  with  the  appli- 
cation of  the  words  to  private  dress,  the  former  to  official  robes,  in  which 
magnificence  was  more  important  than  solidity,  and  which  might  be  trans- 
ferred from  one  incumbent  to  the  next,  and  so  be  represented  even  in  the  stricter 
sense  as  old  or  ancient.     The  general  sense  of  the  prediction  evidently  is, 

/that  the  commercial  gains  of  Tyre  should  redound  to  the  advantage  of  the 
V  servants  of  Jehovah. 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

Here  begins  a  series  of  prophecies  (chaps,  xxiv.-xxxv.),  having  reference 
chiefly  to  Judah.  It  is  not  divided  into  parts  by  any  titles  or  express 
intimations  of  a  change  of  subject.     The  style  is  also  homogeneous  and 


ISAIAH  XXIV.  403 

nniiorm.  The  attempts  which  have  beeu  made  to  subdivide  this  portion 
of  the  book,  are  for  the  most  part  arbitrary.  The  conventional  division 
into  chapters  may  be  retained  as  a  matter  of  convenience.  The  first  four 
chapters  (xxiv.-xxvii.)  are  now  universally  regarded  as  forming  one 
continuous  composition.  What  is  said  of  chap.  xxiv.  is  therefore  in  some 
degree  applicable  to  the  whole.  This  chapter  contains  a  description  of  a 
countiy  filled  with  confusion  and  distress,  by  a  visitation  from  Jehovah  in 
consequence  of  its  iniquities,  vers.  1-12.  It  then  speaks  of  a  remnant 
scattered  among  the  nations  and  glorifying  God  in  distant  lands,  vers.  13-lG. 
The  Prophet  then  resumes  his  description  of  the  judgments  coming  on  the 
same  land  or  another,  winding  up  with  a  prophecy  of  Jehovah's  exaltation 
in  Jerusalem,  vers.  16-23.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  explained  this  chapter  as 
a  prediction  of  the  end  of  the  world,  in  which  they  have  been  followed  by 
(Ecolampadius  and  some  later  wi'iters.  Cyril  referred  it  to  the  same  event, 
but  understood  it  in  its  primai-y  meaning,  as  a  summary  of  the  foregoing 
prophecies  against  foreign  nations.  The  older  Jews  (as  we  learn  from 
Jarchi  and  Aben  Ezra)  applied  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  to  the  Assyrian 
invasions  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  the  last  to  the  wars  of  Gog  and  Magog 
in  the  days  of  the  Messiah.  But  Moses  Haccohen  referred  the  whole  to  the 
former  period,  Ivimchi  and  Abarbenel  the  whole  to  the  latter.  Luther 
applied  it  to  the  desolation  of  Judea  by  the  Romans.  Calvin  agreed  with 
Cyril  in  regarding  it  as  a  summary  of  the  preceding  prophecies  both  against 
Israel  and  foreign  nations,  but  denied  any  reference  to  the  day  of  judgment. 
Grotius  adhered  to  Moses  Haccohen,  in  applying  the  whole  to  the  Assyrian 
invasions.  He  referred  the  first  part  to  the  wasting  of  the  ten  tribes  by 
Shalmaneser,  and  the  second  to  Sennacherib's  invasion  of  Judah.  Cocceius 
is  as  usual  in  the  opposite  extreme,  applying  the  chapter  to  the  German 
and  Bohemian  war,  Gustavus  Adophus,  Wallenstein,  the  taking  of  Ratisbon, 
the  battle  of  NorUngen,  and  the  conflicts  between  Charles  I.  of  England  and 
the  Parliament.  Clericus  understood  the  chapter  as  a  prophecy  of  the 
Babylonian  conquest  of  Judea,  the  captivity,  and  the  restoration  of  the  Jewish 
commonwealth.  Vitringa  explained  it  as  relating,  in  its  primary  sense,  to 
the  persecution  of  the  Jews  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  and  his  successors,  and 
their  deliverance  by  the  Maccabees,  but  in  its  mystical  or  secondary  sense 
to  certain  changes  which  await  the  Christian  Church  in  future  times.  Lowth 
difi"ered  little  in  reality  from  Calvin,  except  that  he  confined  the  prediction 
more  exclusively  to  Judah  and  its  sufferings  at  the  hands  of  the  Assyrians, 
Babylonians,  and  Romans,  None  of  the  writers  who  have  now  been  men- 
tioned entertained  the  least  doubt  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  prophecy. 
The  turning-point  between  the  old  and  new  school  of  criticism  is  occupied 
by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who,  without  suggesting  any  doubt  as  to  the  age  or  author, 
pronounces  the  passage  the  most  difficult  in  the  book,  and  is  altogether 
doubtful  whether  it  has  ever  been  fulfilled.  Koppe  divides  the  chapter  into 
two  independent  prophecies.  Eichhom  approves  of  this  division,  and  infers 
from  the  stjde  and  phraseology,  that  the  chapter  was  written  after  the 
destruction  of  Babylon.  Bertholdt  determines  in  the  same  way,  that  it  was 
composed  immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
Rosenmiiller,  in  the  first  edition  of  his  Scholia,  agrees  with  Eichhorn,  but  in 
the  second,  he  maintains  that  Isaiah  was  the  author,  and  that  he  here  ex- 
presses a  general  anticipation  of  approaching  changes.  Gesenius  pronounccg 
the  style  far  inferior  to  that  of  Isaiah,  and  ascribes  the  passage  to  a  writer  in 
the  Babylonian  exile  just  before  the  fall  of  Babylon.  Hitzig  on  the  other 
hand  ascribes  it  to  an  Ephraimite  captive  in  Assyi-ia,  and  supposes  the 


404  ISAIAH  A'AVr.  [\kr.  1. 

destruction  of  Nineveh  to  be  foretold.  Kwald  tliiuks  the  prophecy  was 
written  in  Palestine  after  the  restoration  of  the  Jews,  and  in  anticipation  of 
Cambyses'  attack  on  Egypt.  Umbreit  agrees  substantially  with  Gcsenius,  and 
Knobel  with  liertholdt.  We  have  here  another  illustration  of  the  value  of  the 
boasted  modern  criticism.  Geseniusisconfidentthattheprophecy  was  written 
in  liabylon  ;  Ewald  and  Knobel  are  equally  confident  that  it  was  written 
in  the  Holy  Land.  Gcsenius  disparages  the  style  as  cold  and  artificial  ; 
Hitzig  speaks  of  it  with  contempt  as  awkward,  feeble,  and  inelegant;  Ewald 
treats  it  with  respect  as  poetical  and  skilful,  although  not  original ;  while 
Umbreit  lauds  it  as  a  noble  specimen  of  Hebrew  poetiy.  In  this  case,  as 
in  others,  each  writer  first  determines  upon  general  grounds  the  age  of  the 
production,  and  then  confirms  it  by  internal  proofs.  The  points  of  resemblance 
to  the  undisputed  writings  of  Isaiah  are  set  dowai  as  plagiarisms  or  imitations. 
Ewald  even  goes  so  far  as  to  mark  certain  passages  as  borrowed  from  older 
writers  no  longer  extant.  The  paronomasias  and  other  verbal  peculiarities  of 
the  passage,  instead  of  proving  it  the  work  of  Isaiah,  in  whose  acknowledged 
writings  they  are  also  found,  prove  the  contrar}'  because  they  are  so  numerous. 
In  this  way  all  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  a  disputed  passnge  is  rendered 
impossible.  If  it  has  not  the  usual  characteristics  of  the  author,  it  is  therefore 
spurious  ;  if  it  has,  it  is  evidently  an  imitation.  It  is  true,  distinctions  are 
made  as  to  the  number,  good  taste,  and  connection  ;  but  they  are  always 
made  at  will,  and  so  as  to  confirm  the  previous  conclusion.  Setting  aside 
this  empirical  criticism  as  unworthy  of  attention,  we  may  observe  that  the 
endless  diversity  of  judgment,  both  among  the  older  and  later  writers,  shews 
that  the  prediction  is  generic.  Henderson  observes  indeed  on  Lowth's 
suggestion  that  the  prophecy  refers  to  more  than  one  invasion  of  the  Holy 
Land,  that  "  this  hypothesis,  though  supplying  an  easy  mode  of  intei'preting 
all  its  parts,  is  to  be  rejected,  having  been  obviously  iramed  for  the  purpose 
of  getting  rid  of  the  difficulties ;  "  as  if  hypotheses  were  ever  framed  for  any 
other  purpose,  and  as  if  there  could  be  a  stronger  proof  that  a  hypothesis 
is  true,  than  the  fact  of  its  getting  rid  of  the  difficulties  and  supplying  an 
easy  mode  of  interpreting  all  the  parts.  In  this  case,  as  in  many  others,  the 
exclusive  restriction  of  the  prophecy  to  one  event  is  wholly  arbitrary.  What 
the  Prophet  has  left  indefinite  we  have  no  right  to  make  specific.  Particular 
allusions  there  may  be  :  but  this,  as  we  have  seen  in  other  cases,  does  not 
limit  the  application  of  the  whole. 

1.  lielwld  Jehovah  {is)  pouring  out  the  houl  ami  emptijirxi  it.  and  lie  will 
turn  doiin  its  face,  and  he  will  scatter  its  inhabitants.  The  figure  is  that 
of  a  bottle  or  other  vessel  drained  of  its  contents  by  being  tui-ned  upside 
doN\Ti.  The  face  is  not  the  soil  or  ground  (Hendewerk).  but  the  upper 
part  or  mouth  of  the  vessel.  The  last  clause  resolves  the  figure  into  literal 
expressions,  f  PD  is  not  to  cause  to  flow,  as  in  Arabic,  but  to  scatter, 
according  to  the  uniform  Hebrew  usage.  The  allusion  may  be  both 
to  flight  and  deportation.  Gcsenius  admits  that  HSn  with  the  participle 
commonly  indicates  present  or  future  time ;  but  nevertheless  applies  this 
verse  to  the  Pal)ylonian  conquest  of  Judt-a,  which  was  long  past  at  the  time 
when  he  supposes  the  chapter  to  have  been  written.  Ewald  and  Hitzig, 
who  refer  it  to  events  still  future  at  the  date  of  the  prediction,  insist 
upon  the  future  form.  The  simple  truth  is,  that  Isaiah  here  speaks  of  the 
Jiabylonian  conqui'st  as  still  distant,  but  at  the  same  time  as  infallibly 
certain.  To  avoid  this  conclusion,  Gcsenius  denies  that  Isaiah  was  the  author, 
and  violates  the  usage  of  the  language  by  translating  this  whole  passage  in 
the  past  tense. 


Yer.  2-5.J  ISAIAH  XXIV.  405 

2.  And  it  shall  he,  as  the  people  so  the  priest,  as  the  servant  so  his  master, 
as  the  maid  so  her  mistress,  as  the  buyer  so  the  seller,  as  the  lender  so  tha 
borrower,  as  the  creditor  so  the  debtor.  That  is,  all  ranks  and  classes  shall 
fare  alike.  The  double  3  to  express  the  idea  as-so  is  like  the  use  of  et-et  in 
Latin,  where  we  say  hoth-and,  or  aut-aut  where  we  say  either-or.  Kimchi 
says  that  each  term  includes  a  double  comparison,  (the  people)  like  tlie  priest 
(and  the  priest)  like  the  people,  (the  servant)  like  the  master  (and  the  master) 
like  the  servant.  On  the  form  ^P^  see  Gesenius,  §  74,  20.  The  mention 
of  the  priest  is  no  more  a  proof  of  later  date  in  this  case  than  in  Hosea  iv.  9. 
Saadias  makes  li"l3  mean  a  prince  or  ruler,  which  is  also  given  in  the  margin 
of  the  English  Bible. 

3.  The  land  shall  he  utterly  emptied  and  utterly  spoiled,  for  Jehovah 
speaks  (or  hath  spoken)  this  word.  Gesenius  arbitrarily  translates  the  verbs 
as  preterites,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Hendewerk.  Ewald  explains  them 
as  descriptive  presents.  De  Wette  as  usual  disregards  the  reduplication 
of  the  Hebrew  verbs.  It  is  no  doubt  emphatic,  however,  and  may  be  ex- 
pressed by  a  simple  repetition,  emptied  emptied  (Ewald),  or  by  combining 
a  verb  and  adjective,  empty  and  emptied  (Hitzig),  or  by  introducing  an  in- 
tensive adverb,  utterly,  wholly,  as  in  the  English  Version  and  most  others. 
According  to  Knobel,  pi3J!l  is  put  for  the  more  usual  form  p3Jil  in  order  to 
assimilate  it  to  the  infinitive.  The  full  orthography  with  1  is  mentioned  by 
Gesenius  as  a  sign  of  later  date,  although  he  does  not  deny  that  it  also 
occurs  in  the  older  books.  The  land  here  mentioned  is  supposed  by  Hitzig 
to  be  Assyria  ;  by  all  other  interpreters  Palestine.  In  order  to  justify  his 
reference  of  this  part  of  the  chapter  to  past  time,  Gesenius  explains  the  last 
clause  as  relating  to  the  divine  purpose  or  decree  (for  so  Jehovah  had  com- 
manded), whereas  it  elsewhere  denotes  the  certainty  of  the  event  because 
predicted  by  Jehovah.  The  necessity  of  this  departure  from  the  usage  of 
the  phrase  is  a  strong  objection  to  his  interpretation  of  the  chapter,  as 
written  during  the  Babylonian  exile  by  a  captive  Jew.  v.».t 

4.  The  earth  mourneth,  fadeth  ;  theioorld  languisheth,  fadeth  :  the  highest 
of  the  people  of  the  earth  languish.  )^"lKn  is  not  the  /ancZ  (Gesenius),  as 
appears  from  the  parallel  expression  ^^D.  Earth  and  world,  however,  are 
not  to  be  taken  in  their  widest  sense  (Rosenmiiller),  but  as  poetical  de- 
scriptions of  a  country  (Ewald) ;  not  Assyria  (Hitzig),  but  Palestine. 
Jerome  refers  the  whole  description  to  the  end  of  the  world.  For  Diip 
Koppe  reads  Di"ip  /Vo/«  the  height  (i.  e.  cast  down  from  it),  for  which  there  is 
neither  authoritj'  nor  necessity.  J.  D.  Michaelis  inserts  and  after  DIID  (the 
high  ones  and  the  people  of  the  land),  which  is  also  unnecessary.  The 
Septuagint  and  Peshito  omit  DV,  but  it  is  found  in  all  manscripts.  D1"10  is 
an  abstract  used  for  a  concrete,  height  for  highest  part  or  high  ones.  Hen- 
derson supposes  an  allusion  to  the  two  thousand  nobles  carried  away  by 
Xebuchadnezzar.  The  figures  are  borrowed  from  the  vegetable  world. 
Several  of  the  German  writers  amuse  themselves  with  trying  to  copy  the 
paronomasia  in  the  first  clause.  Gesenius  has  iichzet  und  lechzet,  Ewald 
cs  icelkt  es  verivelkt,  Iviiobel  icelkt  und  fdll  die  Welt.  It  is  curious  to  ob- 
serve the  pains  laid  out  upon  these  useless  and  unsuccessful  imitations  by 
writers  who  often  disregard  the  idiomatic  form  of  the  construction. 

5.  And  the  land  has  been  prof aned  under  its  inhabitants,  because  they  have 
transgressed  the  lav^s,  violated  the  statute,  broken  the  everlasting  covenant. 
Knobel  reads,  and  so  the  land,  as  if  the  verse  contained  the  punishment 
and  not  the  sin  of  the  chosen  people.  In  accordance  with  this  hypothesis, 
he  explains  the  profaning  of  the  land  to  be  its  invasion  and  subjection  by 


406  ISAIAH  XXIV.  [Ver.  G-8. 

the  Babylonians.  Vnder  its  hihahltants  will  then  mean  nothing  more  than 
the  land  with  those  upon  it.  All  other  writers  seem  to  apply  the  passage 
to  the  Jews,  and  to  understand  it  as  referring  their  calamities  to  their 
transgressions.  The  land  is  said  to  be  profiined  as  being  a  holy  land  or 
consecrated  to  Jehovah.  Most  interpreters  suppose  a  special  reference  to 
pollution  by  blood,  or  the  guilt  of  murder,  in  accordance  with  Symniachus's 
version  i^oioxrovri^rj.  The  ancient  versions  give  rinri  the  sense  of  for,  on 
account  of ;  but  the  proper  meaning  Jitidcr  is  far  more  appropriate  and  ex- 
pressive. The  ancient  versions  also  make  pn  a  plural,  and  this  reading  is 
found  in  one  manuscript  and  one  edition.  Aben  Ezra  explains  the  unusual 
plural  rnin  as  denoting  not  the  law  of  Moses,  but  the  laws  common  to  all 
nations.  Yitringa  in  like  manner  makes  it  synonymous  with  the  jm  gentium 
of  the  Koman  writers.  Hitzig  understands  by  it  the  Noachic  precepts,  on 
account  of  the  allusion  to  the  flood  in  ver.  8.  There  seems  to  be  no  suffi- 
cient reason  for  departing  from  the  ordinar}'  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  words 
as  denoting  the  divine  law  generally.  The  three  terms  used  are  substantially 
synonymous,  Icnc,  statute,  covoiant,  being  continually  interchanged.  Hen- 
derson needlessly  refers  the  last  to  the  covenant  of  Sinai,  and  Hendewerk 
distinguishes  between  the  moral  and  ceremonial  parts  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
The  simple  meaning  of  the  verse  is  that  they  disobeyed  the  will  of  God.  In 
the  phrase,  thei/  changed  the  ordinance,  Gill  finds  a  reference  not  only  to  the 
popish  corruptions  of  the  eucharist,  but  to  the  substitution  of  infant  sprink- 
ling for  adult  immersion. 

6.  Therefore  a  curse  devoured  the  earth,  and  those  dwellinf/  in  it  uere 
reckoned  guilty  (and  so  treated).  Therefore  the  inhahilants  of  the  earth 
lurned,  and  there  arefetv  men  left.  HPJ^  does  not  here  mean  false  swearing, 
as  explained  in  the  Targum  and  by  Jarchi  and  Kimchi,  but  the  curse  of 
God,  attending  ths  violation  of  his  law.  The  mention  of  this  penalty  is 
absurdly  represented  by  Gesenius  and  ICnobel  as  a  proof  of  the  late  date 
of  the  prophecy.  ClJi'K  is  taken  by  some  of  the  early  \mters  in  the  sense 
of  being  desolate.  Its  true  sense  is  that  of  being  recognised  as  guilty,  and 
treated  accordingly.  It  therefore  suggests  the  ideas  both  of  guilt  and 
punishment.  Twenty-eight  manuscripts  and  three  editions  with  the  Peshito 
read  n'?2N  instead  of  Tw'2'^,  a  variation  probably  derived  from  ver.  4,  or 
from  Jer.  xliii.  10.  The  Septuagint  makes  "IIH  mean  then  shall  be  poor  ; 
Symmachus,  they  shall  be  exhausted;  J.  D.  Llichaolis,  theg  shall  be  diminished. 
The  Targum  gives  the  word  the  general  sense  of  being  consumed  or  de- 
stroyed ;  but  the  latest  writers  all  prefer  the  more  specific  sense  of  burning 
or  being  buiiit,  either  by  internal  heat  like  that  of  fever,  or  by  the  fire  of 
outward  persecutions.  Houbigant  and  Lowth,  without  the  least  authority, 
read  13"in  for  nn.  Gesenius  supposes  the  imagery  to  be  copied  from  Joel 
i.  8-20. 

7.  The  new  tcine  mourncth  ;  the  vine  languisheth  ;  all  the  merrg-heavted 
do  sigh.  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  and  Henderson  nnderstand  ti'1"'''n  as  denoting 
the  juice  of  the  grape  while  on  the  vine  ;  Knobel  by  synecdoche  the  grape 
itself.  But  as  the  whole  description  is  figurative,  there  is  no  need  of  de- 
parting from  the  usual  sense  of  suret  or  new  wine.  Rosenmiiller  and  Barnes 
think  the  wine  is  here  described  as  mouniing  because  none  drink  it ; 
Hendewerk,  because  it  is  drunk  by  foreigners  and  not  by  natives.  This  is 
changing  a  natural  and  beautiful  figure  into  a  frigid  conceit.  Gesenius  in- 
forms us  that  this  verse  was  also  copied  from  Joel  (chap.  i.  10-12),  where 
he  says  it  stands  in  a  much  more  natural  connection. 

8.  Still  is  the  mirth  of  drums ;  ceased  is  the  noise  of  revellers  ;  still  is 


Ver.  9-1 2.J  ISAIAH  XXIV.  407 

the  mirth  of  the  harp.     Music  is  here  mentioned  as  a  common  token  and 
accompaniment  of  mirth.     Three  manuscripts,  instead  of  ps^^,  read  P^'^.    > 

9.  With  the  song  they  shall  not  drink  wine  ;  bitter  shall  strong  drink 
he  to  them  that  drink  it.  Hitzig  understands  this  to  mean  that  they  shall  not 
drink  wine  at  all ;  Knobel,  that  it  shall  not  be  accompanied  with  music. 
*13J^  is  neither  beer  (J.  D.  Michaelis)  nor  palm- wine  (Lowth)  specifically, 
but  intoxicating  drinks  in  general.  The  last  clause  means  of  course  that 
they  should  lose  the  appetite  for  such  enjoyments. 

10.  Broken  down  is  the  city  of  confusion  (emptiness  or  desolation),  shut  up 
is  every  house  from  entering,  (i.  e.  so  that  it  is  not  or  cannot  be  entered). 
The  city  meant  is  neither  Nineveh  (Hitzig),  nor  cities  in  general  (Rosen- 
miiller),  but  Jerusalem.  Hitzig  and  Knobel  prefer  the  construction,  it  is 
broken  doion  into  {i.  e.  so  as  to  be)  a  city  of  desolation,  but  the  common 
construction  is  more  natural  which  makes  inn  n''"lp  the  subject  of  the  verb. 
The  last  clause  might  be  understood  to  refer  to  the  closing  of  the  houses  by 
the  inhabitants  against  the  enemy,  or  to  their  being  left  unoccupied  ;  but 
the  first  clause  seems  to  shew  that  it  rather  relates  to  the  obstruction  of 
the  entrance  by  the  ruins.  Rosenmiiller's  explanation  of  inn  n''"ip,  as 
denoting  city  of  idols,  or  idolatrous  city,  is  very  unnatural.  Hitzig  and 
others  make  the  P  before  n''2  simply  equivalent  to  withottt.  Compare  the 
similar  expression  in  chap,  xxiii.  1. 

11.  A  cry  for  wine  in  the  streets — darkened  is  all  joy — departed  is  the 
gladness  of  the  earth.  To  the  critical  acumen  of  Gesenius  this  verse  stands 
confessed  as  a  plagiarism  from  Joel  i.  15.  To  the  exquisite  taste  of  Hitzig 
it  is  not  only  an  tmda  redundans,  but  completely  lame  and  flat  {vollends 
lahm  imd  matt).  One  ground  of  objection  to  it  is  that  a  calling  for  wine, 
though  perfectly  appropriate  in  Joel,  is  entirely  out  of  place  in  this  descrip- 
tion of  a  conquered  and  dismantled  town.  The  later  writers  have  had  taste 
enough  to  see  that  the  cry  meant  is  not  that  of  drunkards  for  more  liquor, 
but  of  the  perishing  inhabitants  for  necessary  refreshment  (Hendewerk), 
perhaps  with  special  reference  to  the  sick  and  wounded  (Henderson)  or  to 
children  (Hitzig).  Knobel  gives  the  words  the  still  more  general  sense  of 
lamentation  for  the  blasted  vintage.  Hendewerk  points  out  that  wine  alone 
is  mentioned  here,  as  bread  is  in  Lam.  iv.  4,  while  in  Lam.  ii.  12  both  are 
combined.  There  is  no  need  of  taking  rin"'V  iu  the  sense  of  a  call  to  the 
wine  sellers  from  their  customers  (Kimchi),  much  less  of  supplying  a  nega- 
tive, so  as  to  make  it  mean  tbat  there  is  no  call  for  wine  in  the  streets 
(Clericus).  Houbigant  and  Lowth  for  n3"iy  read  T\''\2.V  (has  passed  away). 
Rosenmiiller  gives  the  same  or  nearly  the  same  sense  to  the  common  text. 
But  all  the  latest  writers  acquiesce  in  Buxtorfs  definition  of  the  word  as 
meaning  to  grow  dark,  with  special  reference  to  the  setting  of  the  sun  or 
the  coming  on  of  twilhght.  This  beautiful  figure  is  itself  an  answer  to  the 
sesthetical  sneers  of  certain  critics.  n?J3  may  either  have  the  general  sense 
oi  gone,  departed  (Henderson),  or  the  more  specific  one  of  banished  (Gese- 
nius), expatriated  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  carried  captive  (Umbreit).  The  first 
clause  is  rendered  more  expressive  in  the  versions  of  De  Wette,  Umbreit, 
and  Hendewerk,  by  the  omission  of  the  verb.  The  last-mentioned  writer 
understands  by  the  joy  of  the  land,  the  population  of  Jerusalem.  Nine 
manuscripts  have  ''^  before  P^n,  and  the  Septuagint  supphes  it  before 

12.  What  is  left  in  the  city  is  desolation,  and  into  ruins  is  the  gate  beaten 
doion.  The  first  clause  is  in  apposition  to  the  last  of  ver.  11.  Joy  is  gone 
and  desolation  is  left  behind.     All  the  modern  writers  take  n*X5J'  as  an  ad. 


408  ISAIAH  XXIV.  [Ver.  13-15. 

verbial  accnsative  qualifying  03*  by  describing  tbe  effect  or  result  of  the 
action.  The  gate  is  here  named  as  the  most  important  part  of  the  city  ; 
but  it  does  not  directly  mean  the  city  itself.  On  the  form  ns*  see  Gese- 
nius,  §  GG.  Rem.  8. 

13.  For  so  shall  it  he  in  the  midst  of  the  earth  among  the  nations,  Wee 
the  heating  of  an  olive-tree,  like  gleanings  when  the  gathering  is  done. 
There  is  no  need  of  rendering  *?  hut  (Roscnmiillcr)  or  yet  (Henderson),  as 
the  Prophet  is  stating  more  distinctly  the  extent  of  the  desolation  which  he 
had  before  described.  The  fact  that  some  survive  is  indeed  referred  to, 
but  only  indirectly  and  by  implication,  so  that  tbe  verse  is  not  properly  an 
antithesis  to  that  before  it.  Instead  of  saying  that  Isaiah  here  repeats  his 
beautiful  comparison  in  chap.  xvii.  5,  G,  Gescnius  and  his  followers  set  this 
down  as  the  plagiarism  of  a  later  writer.  The  Prophet  is  thus  reduced  to 
a  dilemma  ;  if  he  does  not  repeat  his  own  expressions,  he  is  a  stranger  to 
himself  and  his  own  -writings  ;  if  he  does,  he  is  an  imitator  of  a  later  age. 
Rosenmiiller  supposes  an  allusion  not  only  to  paucity  but  to  inferiority  of 
quality.  In  the  midst  of  the  nations  is  explained  by  Hitzig  as  contrasting 
the  condition  of  the  country  with  that  of  its  neighbours.  Others  under- 
stand it  of  actual  dispersion  among  foreign  nations. 

14.  They  shall  raise  their  voice,  they  shall  sing  (or  shout),  for  the  majesty 
of  Jehovah  they  cry  aloud  from  the  sea.  The  pronoun  at  the  beginning  is 
emphatic.  They,  not  the  nations  (Schelling)  or  the  Jews  left  in  the  land 
(Barnes),  but  the  few  dispersed  survivors  of  these  judgments.  The  ^  before 
PN3  is  not  a  particle  of  time  (Rosenmiiller),  but  points  out  the  subject 
(Maurer)  or  the  occasion  of  the  praise  (Gesenius).  Ewald  supposes  the 
words  of  the  song  itself  to  be  begun  in  the  last  clause  of  this  verse  and  con- 
tinued through  the  next.  But  this  compels  him  to  change  the  pointing  of 
vnv,  and  make  it  an  imperative.  The  Septuagint  and  Theodotion  have  the 
waters  of  the  sea,  as  if  instead  of  D*P  they  read  D^O  or  D^  *P.  Dathe  gives 
the  IP  its  comparative  sense  :  more  (t.  e.  louder)  than  the  sea.  Jarchi  had 
before  given  the  same  construction  but  a  different  sense  :  more  than  (at) 
the  sea,  i.  e.  more  than  they  rejoiced  at  the  deliverance  from  Egypt.  Many 
render  the  phrase  f-om  the  west,  which  is  rather  implied  than  expressed. 
Hitzig  denies  that  there  is  here  a  transition  to  another  subject,  as  admitted 
by  almost  all  interpreters. 

15.  Therefore  in  the  fires  glorify  Jehovah,  in  the  islands  of  the  sea  the  name 
of  Jehovah  God  of  Israel.  Ewald  supposes  the  words  of  the  song  or  shout 
to  be  continued,  Hendewerk  and  Barnes  understand  the  Prophet  as  here 
turning  from  the  remnant  of  Israel  in  Palestine  to  the  scattered  exiles. 
But  it  seems  to  be  really  an  address  to  the  persons  who  had  already  been 
described  as  praising  God,  exhorting  them  to  do  so  still.  Q*"l^5  has  been 
variously  explained  as  meaning  valleys,  caverns,  doctrines,  tires  of  afHic- 
tion,  exile,  Urim  (and  Thummim),  Ur  (of  the  Chaldees),  &c.  Clericus 
makes  C'lND  the  passive  participle  of  "1X3.  It  is  now  commonly  agreed  to 
be  a  local  designation.  Doederlein  deduces  from  an  Arabic  analogy  the 
meaning  in  tlw  north.  ]5ames  suggests  that  D^IX  may  denote  the  northern 
lights  or  aurora  borealis.  Henderson  thinks  the  Prophet  means  the  region 
of  volcanic  fires,  viz.  the  Mediterranean  coasts  and  islands.  But  the  weight 
of  exegetical  authority  preponderates  in  favour  of  the  meaning  in  the  east 
(as  the  region  of  sunrise,  or  of  dawning  light)  in  opposition  to  the  sea  or 
west.  Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  mend  the  text  by  reading  D**N3 
(Lowth),  D*»lO  or  3*DtQ  (Houbigant),  Dnnn  or  DnN*2  (Calmet).  Hensler 
reads  D*?'S3  as  a  contraction  for  D*"i"X?3,  like  Dns3,  Amos.  viii.  8. 


Ver.  16-18.J  ISAIAH  XXIV.  409 

16.  From  the  wing  {skirt  or  edge)  of  the  earth  we  have  heard  songs, 
praise  to  the  righteous ;  and  I  said,  Woe  to  me,  woe  to  me,  alas  for  me  ! 
The  deceivers  deceive,  xoith  deceit  the  deceivers  deceive.  We  hear  promises 
and  praise  to  the  righteous,  but  our  actual  experience  is  that  of  misery, 
pnv  is  not  an  epithet  of  God  (Henderson)  or  Cyrus  (Hendewerk),  but  of 
righteous  men  in  general.  Gesenius  infers  from  the  second  clause  that  the 
writer  was  involved  in  the  miseries  of  Babylon  ;  but  the  same  use  might  be 
made  of  every  ideal  situation  which  the  book  presents.  Several  of  the 
ancient  versions  and  of  the  rabbinical  interpreters  take  ^H  in  the  sense  of 
secret  :  my  secret  is  to  me,  and  I  must  keep  it,  i.  e.  I  cannot  utter  what  I 
know.  Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi,  followed  by  Vitriuga,  gave  it  the  specific 
sense  of  leanness.  But  the  latest  writers  understand  it  as  denoting  ruin, 
misery,  or  woe,  and  the  whole  exclamation  as  substantially  equivalent  to 
that  which  follows.  Here,  as  in  chap.  xxi.  2,  the  latest  writers  make 
1J3  express,  not  fraud,  but  violence,  which  is  contrary  to  usage  and 
entirely  unnecessary.  Ewald  takes  "T.^?  in  its  usual  sense  of  garment,  and 
explains  the  clause  to  mean,  that  robbers  strip  off  the  very  clothes.  ''^^ 
p''"!^?  is  commonly  regarded  as  the  very  language  of  the  song  referred  to  ; 
but  it  may  as  well  be  a  description  of  it,  (a  song  of)  praise  or  honour  to  the 
righteous. 

17.  Fear  and  pit  and  snare  upon  thee,  0  inhabitant  of  the  land  !  This 
may  be  either  a  warning  {are  upon  thee)  or  the  expression  of  a  wish  {be  upon 
thee).  It  is  a  probable  though  not  a  necessary  supposition,  that  the  terms 
here  used  are*,borrowed  from  the  ancient  art  of  hunting.  "tHD  would  then 
denote  some  device  by  which  wild  beasts  were  frightened  into  snares  and 
pitfalls.  It  is  at  least  a  remarkable  coincidence  that  the  Romans  gave  the 
nameformido  to  an  apparatus  used  for  this  purpose.  Henderson  explains 
the  Hebrew  word  to  mean  a  scarecrow.  The  paronomasia  is  copied  by 
Gesenius,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  Hitzig,  in  as  many  different  forms.  It  is 
of  course  regarded  as  a  proof  of  recent  origin,  though  no  one  undertakes  to 
say  at  what  precise  period  the  paronomasia  became  a  favourite  with  the 
Hebrew  writers. 

18.  And  it  shall  be  {that)  the  {one)  flying  from  the  voice  of  the  far  shall 
fall  into  the  pit,  and  the  {one)  coming  up  from  the  midst  of  the  pit  shall  he 

taken  in  the  snare  ;  for  windows  from  on  high  are  opened,  aad  the  founda- 
tions of  the  earth  are  shaken.  The  first  clause  carries  out  the  figures  of  the 
foregoing  verse  ;  and  the  second  introduces  those  of  a  deluge  and  an  earth- 
quake. One  manuscript  instead  of  ^"Ip©  reads  ''JS^,  and  some  interpreters 
regard  "^Ip  as  a  mere  idiomatic  pleonasm.  But  it  much  more  probably  de- 
notes the  voice  of  the  hunter  or  the  noise  made  by  the  instrument  called 
"ins.  The  allusion  to  the  flood  is  acknowledged  by  all  writers  except 
Knobel,  who  objects  that  the  Hebrews  did  not  believe  that  there  could  be  a 
second  deluge  ;  as  if  this  belief  could  prevent  their  understanding  or  em- 
ploying such  a  figure  of  speech.  There  are  thousands  now  who  have  the 
same  belief,  but  who  do  not  for  that  reason  feel  debarred  from  representing 
overwhelming  evils  as  a  deluge  of  misfortune  or  of  wrath.  Akin  to  this  is 
the  assertion  of  the  same  writer,  and  of  Gesenius  before  him,  that  the  early 
Hebrews  actually  thought  that  there  were  windows  in  the  solid  vault  of 
heaven.  In  the  same  way  it  might  be  proved  that  Milton  held  the  stars 
and  planets  to  be  burning  lamps,  and  that  Gesenius  himself,  when  he  speaks 
of  a  column  of  smoke,  means  a  solid  piece  of  masonry.  It  seems  to  be  a 
canon  with  some  critics,  that  all  the  prosaic  language  of  the  Bible  is  to  be 
interpreted  as  poetry,  and  all  its  poetry  as  prose,  especially  when  any  colour 


410  ISAIAH  XXIV.  [Vke.  19-21. 

is  afforded  for  the  charge  of  ignorant  credulity.  Kimclii  imagines  that 
■windows  arc  here  mentioned  as  the  apertures  tlirough  which  God  looks 
upon  the  earth  ;  Kiiohcl,  as  those  through  which  he  sends  down  thunder- 
bolts and  lightning.  But  the  allusion  to  the  flood  is  rendered  certain  by 
the  resemblance  of  the  language  to  that  used  in  Gen.  vii.  11. 

19.  Broken,  hrohen  is  the  earth;  shattered,  shattered  is  the  earth; 
shaken,  shaken  is  the  earth.  This  striking  verse  is  pronounced  by  Geseuius 
and  Hitzig,  in  accordance  with  some  mystical  canon  of  criticism,  very  in- 
elegant and  in  bad  taste.  They  both  assign  the  reason  that  the  word  tarth 
is  repeated.  Hitzig  adds  that  the  verse  contains  an  antichmax,  which  is 
not  the  case,  as  no  natural  phenomenon  can  be  more  impressive  than  an 
earthquake.  The  reduplication  of  the  Hebrew  verbs  is  as  variously  ex- 
pressed by  the  different  translators  as  in  ver.  3. 

20.  21ie  earth  reels,  reels  like  a  drunken  man,  and  is  shaken  like  a  ham- 
mock. And  Iwavy  upon  her  is  her  guilt,  and  she  shall  fall  and  rine  no  more. 
The  ideas  earth  and  land,  both  which  are  expressed  by  the  Hebrew  X'^^y 
run  into  one  another  and  are  interchanged  in  a  manner  not  to  be  expressed 
in  a  translation.  The  old  translation  of  the  second  clause  {removed  like  a 
cotta/je)  is  now  commonly  abandoned.  nj"l?D  is  properly  a  temporary 
lodging- place.  In  chap.  i.  8,  it  was  applied  to  a  watch-shed  in  a  melon- 
field.  Here  it  seems  to  signify  something  more  moveable  and  something 
suspended  in  the  air.  The  latest  writers  are  accordingly  agreed  in  retain- 
ing the  interpretation  put  upon  the  word  by  the  Targnni,  the  Peshito,  and 
Saadias,  which  makes  it  mean  a  cloth  or  mat  suspended  between  trees  or 
boughs  of  trees  for  the  use  of  nocturnal  watchers.  Such  are  described  by 
Niebuhr  as  common  in  Arabia,  and  are  known  throughout  the  East  by  a 
name  essentially  identical  with  those  used  in  the  versions  above  cited.  The 
readers  of  this  verse  would  never  have  discovered,  without  Hitzig'said,  that 
its  figures  are  extravagant  and  overstrained. 

21.  And  it  shall  he  in  that  day  that  Jehovah  shall  visit  (for  the  purpose 
of  inflicting  punishment)  upon  the  host  oj  the  hicjh  pilace  in  the  high  place, 
and  iipnn  the  kings  of  the  earth  upon  the  earth.  Interpreters  have  com- 
monly assumed  that  the  host  of  the  high  place  is  the  same  with  the  host  of 
heaven,  ami  must  therefore  mean  either  stars  (Jerome),  or  angels  (Aben 
Ezra),  or  both  (Gesenius).  Grotius  understands  by  it  the  images  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  worshipped  in  Assyria.  Gesenius  finds  here  an  allusion 
to  the  punishment  of  fallen  angels,  and  then  makes  this  a  proof  of  recent 
origin,  because  the  Jewish  demonology  was  later  than  the  time  of  Isaiah. 
It  may  be  doubted  whether  there  is  any  reference  to  the  host  of  heaven  at 
all.  D1">D  is  a  relative  expression,  and  although  applied  to  heaven  in  ver. 
18,  is  applied  to  earth,  or  to  human  socitty  in  ver.  4.  The  former  sense 
may  seem  to  be  here  required  by  the  antithesis  of  HOIN  ;  but  it  is  not  clear 
that  any  antithesis  was  intended,  which  is  the  less  probable  because 
no*1X  is  not  the  customary  opposite  of  heaven.  The  sense  may  simply  be 
that  God  will  judge  the  high  or  lofty  host,  viz.  the  kings  of  the  land  upon 
the  land,  liut  even  if  tliere  be  an  antithesis,  and  even  if  tliehost  of  heaven 
in  the  usual  sense  of  the  expression  be  alluded  to,  the  analogy  of  this  whole 
context  would  seem  to  indicate  that  this  is  merely  a  strong  figure  for  dille- 
rent  ranks  or  degrees  of  dignity  on  earth.  It  is  not  indeed  probable  that 
the  Jewish  hierarchy  is  specifically  meant,  as  Barnes  supposes ;  but  it  is 
altogether  natural  to  understand  the  words  more  generally  as  denoting 
kings  and  potentates.  And  even  on  the  supposition  that  the  contrast  here 
intended  is  between  the  hosts  of  heaven  and  earth,  the  obvious  meaning  is 


Vee.  22,  23.]  ISAIAH  XXIV.  411 

that  God  will  judge  the  principalities  and  powers  of  both  worlds,  in  order 
to  accomplish  his  declared  designs.  To  pronounce  the  passage  spurious 
because  it  seems  to  speak  of  evil  spirits  and  their  doom,  is  to  assume  that 
nothing  is  ever  mentioned  for  the  first  time,  but  that  all  allusion  to  a  doc- 
trine must  be  simultaneous.  Even  in  the  later  books  of  Scripture,  how 
few  and  incidental  and  obscure  are  the  allusions  to  this  subject  !  In  the 
same  taste  and  spirit,  and  of  equal  value,  are  Gesenius's  attempts  to  connect 
this  verse  with  the  doctrines  of  Zoroaster.  It  is  not  unworthy  of  remark 
that  Hitzig,  who  delights  in  all  such  demonstrations  of  a  later  date  and 
lower  standard  of  opinion  in  the  sacred  books,  foregoes  that  pleasure  here, 
and  flatly  denies  that  there  is  any  reference  to  demons  in  the  text,  because 
he  had  assumed  the  ground  that  it  was  written  in  Assyria  before  the  fall  of 
Nineveh. 

22.  And  they  shall  he  gathered  with  a  gathering  as  prisoners  in  a  pit, 
and  shall  he  shut  up  in  a  dungeon,  and  after  many  days  they  shall  he 
visited.  Whether  nQp}<l  be  construed  with  "fD^^  [the  gathering  of  a  prisoner), 
or  explained  as  an  emphatic  reduplication,  the  sense  of  the  first  clause 
evidently  is  that  they  shall  be  imprisoned.  The  persons  meant  are  of  course 
the  principalities  and  powers  of  the  verse  preceding.  The  affinity  between 
1'iiD  and  "1.1DD  cannot  well  be  expressed  in  English,  as  it  is  in  the  G-erman 
version  of  Gesenius  (verschlossen  ins  Verschloss).  There  are  two  interpre- 
tations of  the  verb  1"lpD\  According  to  one,  it  means  they  shall  he pmnished, 
or  at  least  brought  forth  to  judgment.  This  is  the  sense  put  upon  it  by 
Eichhorn,  Kosenmiiller,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Umbreit,  and  Hendewerk.  The 
other  is,  they  shall  he  visited  in  mercy.  This  explanation  is  as  old  as  Rabbi 
Joseph  Kimchi,  if  not  as  the  Peshito.  Calvin  seems  to  favour  it,  and  it  is 
adopted  by  Hitzig,  Henderson,  andEwald.  Barnes,  who  refers  these  verses 
to  the  Jewish  priests,  gives  the  verb  the  specific  meaning,  shallhe  mustered, 
with  a  view  to  their  return  from  exile. 

2?>.  And  the  moon  shall  he  confounded,  and  the  sun  ashamed,  for 
Jehovah  of  hosts  is  king  in  mount  Zion,  and  in  Jerusalem,  and  hefore  Jiis 
elders  there  is  glory.  Before  the  splendour  of  Jehovah's  reign  all  lesser 
principalities  and  powers  shall  fade  away.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing 
an  allusion  to  the  worship  of  the  sun  and  moon.  Some  give  to  ^?  the  sense 
oi  ivhen,  which  is  admissible,  but  needless  and  indeed  inadequate  It  was 
not  merely  wlien  Jehovah  reigned,  but  hecause  he  reigned,  that  all  inferior 
luminaries  were  to  be  eclipsed.  The  elders  are  the  rulers  of  Israel  as  the 
church.  Henderson  sees  a  distinct  allusion  to  the  form  of  government  by 
elders,  as  that  which  shall  prevail  in  the  last  and  best  days  of  the  church. 
The  simple  meaning  of  the  verse  appears  to  be  that  Jehovah's  reign  over  his 
people  shiJl  be  more  august  than  that  of  any  created  sovereign.  This  is 
true  of  the  church'  in  various  periods  of  history,  but  more  especially  in  those 
when  the  presence  and  power  of  God  are  peculiarly  manifested.  The  affinity 
between  this  verse  and  the  last  of  the  preceding  chapter  seems  to  shew  that 
their  juxtaposition  is  by  no  means  fortuitous.  The  Septuagint  renders 
the  first  clause  thus,  the  brick  shall  moulder  and  the  wall  shall  fall.  They 
evidently  read  Hp??  and  HDh,  although  Grotius  imagines  that  the  deviation 
from  the  true  sense  was  intentional,  in  order  to  avoid  offending  the  Pla- 
tonists  of  Egypt  by  disparaging  the  sun  and  moon.  If  such  a  motive  could 
have  influenced  the  authors  of  the  version,  its  eff'ects  would  not  have  been 
confined  to  one  or  a  few  comparatively  unimportant  passages. 


412  ISAIAH  XXV.  [Veb.  1. 


CHAPTER   XXV. 

This  chapter  consists  of  three  distinguishable  parts.  The  first  is  a 
thanksgiving  to  God  for  the  destruction  of  Babylon  and  the  deliverance  of 
the  Jews,  vers.  1-5.  The  second  is  a  promise  of  favour  to  the  Gentiles 
and  the  people  of  God,  when  united  on  mount  Zion,  vers.  6-9.  The  third 
is  a  threatening  of  disgraceful  ruin  to  Moab,  vers.  10-12. 

It  may  be  mentioned  as  a  specimen  of  Ewald's  bold  and  arbitrary  criti- 
cism, that  he  connects  vers,  fi-11  directly  with  chap,  xxiv.,  puts  the  first 
four  verses  together  as  a  stroplw,  and  the  fifth,  twelfth,  and  first  four  verses 
of  the  next  chapter,  as  another  strophe. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that,  though  the  modern  German  writers  all 
regard  this  chapter  as  the  work  of  the  same  period,  and  indeed  of  the  same 
author  as  the  one  before  it,  they  find  here  none  of  those  strong  proofs  of 
deteriorated  taste  and  diction  which  are  so  abundant  in  the  other  case.  To 
be  consistent,  they  should  either  ascribe  the  passages  to  difi"erent  authors, 
or  admit  that  the  twenty-fifth  was  written  at  a  time  and  by  a  man  not 
incapable  of  pure  and  lofty  composition.  It  ought  to  be  observed,  however, 
that  the  admirable  figure  in  ver.  10  strikes  the  delicate  taste  of  Gesenius  as 
low  {uiiedel),  and  of  Ewald  as  dirty  {schmutzig). 

Cocceius,  in  his  exposition  of  this  chapter,  still  enjoys  his  old  hallucina- 
tion that  it  is  a  chapter  of  church  history,  referring  the  first  part  to  the 
great  rebellion  in  England,  and  the  last  to  the  destruction  of  the  Turks,  &c. 

1.  Jehovah  my  God  {art)  thou  ;  I  will  exalt  thee  ;  I  icill  pralae  thy 
name  ;  for  thou  hast  clone  a  wonder,  counsels  from  afar  off,  truth,  certaihtij. 
The  song  of  praise  opens  in  the  usual  lyric  st3'le.  (See  Exodus  xv.  2, 
11  ;  Ps.  cxviii.  28,  cxlv.  1.)  Cocceius,  Vilringa,  and  some  others,  read 
O  thou  my  (lod,  without  supplying  the  substantive  verb  ;  but  the  latter 
construction  is  more  agreeable  to  usage.  n;}1i<  strictly  means  7  will  acknow- 
ledge or  confess.  The  whole  phrase  may  either  mean,  I  will  acknowledge 
thy  goodness  towards  me,  or  I  will  confess  thee  to  be  what  thy  name 
imports,  I  will  acknowledge  thy  acts  to  be  consistent  with  the  previous 
revelations  of  thine  attributes.  Some  render  VO^  simply  as  a  plural.  Ros- 
enmiiller  explains  it  as  a  collective  implying  that  many  particular  wonders 
were  included.  Yitringa  moi-e  naturally  makes  it  an  indefinite  expression, 
something  wonderful  (mirabile  quid).  AVhat  wonder  is  especially  referred 
to,  the  next  verse  explains.  The  last  clause  admits  of  several  difierent  con- 
structions. Ewald,  with  many  of  the  older  writers,  makes  it  an  independent 
proposition,  of  which  HIVV  is  the  subject  and  HJIOX  the  predicate.  Thus 
the  English  Version:  thy  counsels  of  old  ai-e  faithfulness  and  truth.  Barnes 
supplies  another  verb  :  thou  hast  shown  to  be  faithful  and  true.  Gesenius 
makes  niVJ?  as  well  as  X^3  the  object  of  the  verb  ri^ti'V,  and  supplies  a  pre- 
position before  HJICN,  or  regards  it  as  an  adverbial  accusative  :  thou  hast 
executed  ancient  plans  {with)  faithfulness  and  trtdh.  Hitzig  simplifies  the 
same  construction  still  more  by  making  all  the  nouns  in  the  last  clause 
objects  of  the  verb  in  the  first :  thou  hast  brought  to  pass  a  wonder,  ancient 
counsels,  faithfulness,  and  truth.  Fro77i  afar  off  seems  to  imply,  not  only 
that  the  plans  were  formed  of  old,  but  that  they  were  long  ago  revealed. 
Even  long  before  the  event  they  are  certain.  Hitzig,  who  applies  the  whole 
prophecy  to  Nineveh,  is  disposed  to  understand  this  clause  as  referring 
to  the  earlier  prophecies  of  its  destruction  by  Nahum  and  Zephaniah.  The 
Septuagint,  followed  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  reads  iPX  Amen  {yivoiro),  which 


Vek.  2,  8.]  ISAIAH  XA'V.  413 

would  here  be  out  of  place.  \'Oii  and  HJION  are  cognate  forms,  both  denoting 
truth  or  certainty,  and  here  combined,  according  to  a  very  common  Hebrew 
idiom,  for  emphasis. 

2.  lor  thou  luiyf  iunied  {^it)from  a  city  to  a  heap,  a  fortified  tovn   to   a 
ruin,  a  palace  of  drauriers  from  (leiiuj)  a  city  ;  for  ever  it  shall  not  he  built. 
According  to  Rosenmiiller,  citij  is  here  put  for  cities  in  general,  and  the 
verse  contains  a  promise  or  prophetic  description  of  the  golden  age  when 
fortifications  should  no  longer  be  needed,  as  Virgil  says  of  the  same  ideal 
period,  that  there  shall  then  no  more  be  oppida  muris  cincta.     Most  inter- 
preters, however,  are  agreed  that  it  refers  to  a  particular  city;  Grotius  says 
Samaria;  Cappellus,   Jerusalem;    Hitzig,   Nineveh;    the  others,  Babylon, 
Cocceius  applies  the  fii'st  clause  to  the  overthrow  of  episcopacy  in  England, 
and  especially  to  the  exclusion  of  the  bishops  from  the  House  of  Lords. 
(Seiifius  hie  est:    ex  ecclesia   episcopal i  fecisti  acerrum,    hoc   est   earn   totam 
diruisti.)     The  other  clause  he  applies  to  the  subsequent  change  of  the 
republic  into  a  tyranny  (from  a  city  to  a  palace  of  strangers).     riPK'  means 
strictly  thou  hast  placed,  but  is  often  used  with  /  to   denote  the  conversion 
of  a  thing  into  something  else.     Here  it  is  separated  from  ?!?  by  I^VP,  an 
unusual  collocation,  which  led  Houbigant  to  read  "l''V  or  '^'^V.^,  in  which  he 
is  followed  by  Lowth,  Doclerlein,  Dathe,  Gesenius,  and   I^obel.     J.  I), 
Michaelis  reads  Dript?^  y]},  which,  instead  of  easing  the  construction,  makes 
it  still  more  harsh.     The  difficulty  is  entirely  removed,  without  a  change  of 
text,  by  supposing  the  object  of  the  verb  to  be  ^V  or   nnp  understood. 
Thou  hast  chanr/ed  (a  city)  /Vow  a  city  to  a  heap.    So  Yitiinga,  Rosenmiiller, 
and  others.     Gesenius  doubts  whether  such  an  ellipsis  is  admissible ;  but 
it  is  surely  more  so  than  an  arbitrary'  change  of  text.     Another  solution  of 
the  syntax  is  proposed  by  Hitzig,  "  thou  hast  turned  from  a  city  to  a  heap, 
a  fortified  town  to  a  ruin,"  in  which  case  n<3'??  is  an  unmeaning  repetition 
of  ^|7,  without  even  parallelism  or  rhythm  to  sanction  it.     The  same  con- 
struction had  substantially  been  given  long  before  bj'  De  Dieu.     Hendewerk 
goes  still  further  and  connects  HPaiD?  with  D"'"IT  |1Q"IX ;   "  thou  changest  the 
fortified  town  from  a  city  to  a  heap,  the  palaces  of  strangers  from  a  city  to 
ruins."       Gesenius  gives   Hl-I!*?  here  its    primary   and   proper    sense    of 
inaccessible.     Most  of  the  modern  writers  understand  by  a  palace  of  stram/ers 
the  royal  city  mentioned  in  the  first  clause,  called  a  palace  on  account  of 
its  splendour,  or  as  being  a  collection  oi  palaces,  or  because  the  palace  was 
the  most  important  part  of  it.    "i^V^  must  then  be  taken  in  a  privative  sense 
(.so  as  not  to  be  a  city).     But  as  the  same  phrase  in  the  fu'st  clause  means 
from  beiny  a  city,  some  give  it  that  sense  here,  and  understand  the  clause  to 
mean  that  God  had  changed  it  from  a  city  to  a  palace  (or  royal  residence)  of 
strangers.     But  if  it  ceased  to  be  a  city,  how  could  it  become  a  palace  ? 
There  is  in  fact  no  inconsistency  between  the  senses  put  upon  l^i^P  by  the 
usual  interpretation.     Even  in  the  first  clause  it  means  strictly /ro?«  or  au-at/ 
from  a  city,  which  can  be  clearly  expressed  in  our  idiom  only  by  using  a 
negative  expression.     For  CIT,  Houbigant  proposes  to  read  DHT,  wholly 
without  reason  or  authority.     D*"it  has  the  same  sense  as  in  chap.  i.  7. 
For  the  use  of  stranyer  in  the  sense  of  enemy,  Gesenius  cites  the  authority 
of  Ossian.     Grotius   explains   it  to  mean   stranye  yoch,  or  their  worship- 
pers, and   applies  the  whole  phrase  to  tbe  idolatrous  temple  of  Samaria. 
The  Targum  in  like  manner  makes  it  mean  an  idol-temple  in  Jerusalem 
itself. 

3.  Therefore  a  powerful  people  shall  honour  thee,  a  city  of  terrible  nations 


414  ISAIAH  XXV.  [Ver.  4. 

shall /ear  thee.  The  destruction  of  Babylon,  and  the  fulfilmont  of  prophecy 
thereby,  shall  lead  even  the  boldest  and  wildest  of  the  heathen  to  acknow- 
ledge Jehovah  as  the  true  God.  It  is  usual  to  apply  the  terms  of  this  verse 
specifically  to  the  Medes  and  Persians  as  the  conquerors  of  Babylon.  Hit- 
zig  refers  them  to  the  Medes  and  Babylonians  as  the  conquerors  of  Nineveh. 
To  this  it  may  be  objected,  that  the  e])ithets,  according  to  usage,  imply 
censure,  rather  than  praise,  and  that  Q"'V'''?Ji  is  applied  in  the  next  verse  to 
the  conquered  Babylonians  themselves  as  having  once  been  tyrants  or 
oppressors.  There  seems  to  be  no  need  of  applying  the  verse  to  a  cordial 
voluntary  recognition  of  Jehovah.  It  may  just  as  well  denote  a  compul- 
sory extorted  homage,  fear  being  taken  in  its  proper  sense.  The  verse  will 
then  be  an  apt  description  of  the  effect  produced  by  Jehovali's  overthrow  of 
Babylon  on  the  Babj'lonians  themselves.  There  is  still  another  explanation, 
namely  that  which  understands  the  verse  more  indefinitely  as  descriptive  of 
an  eflect  pi'oduccd  upon  the  nations  generally.  This,  however,  does  not 
agree  so  well  with  the  use  of  the  terms  people  and  citij  in  the  singiTlar  num- 
ber, for  although  they  may  be  taken  as  collectives,  such  a  construction 
should  not  be  assumed  without  necessity.  But  even  on  the  other  supposi- 
tion, there  is  something  unusual  in  the  expression  city  of  natiom.  It  must 
either  be  explained  as  implying  a  plurality  of  subject  nations,  or  D.''1il  must 
be  taken  in  its  secondary  sense  oi  rjcntilcs,  heathen,  as  applied  to  individuals 
or  to  one  community. 

4.  For  thou  hast  been  a  streiir/th  (or  stroiKjhold)  to  the  weak,  a  slretu/th 
(or  stronghold)  to  the  poor,  in  his  distress,  a  refuge  from  the  storm,  a  shadow 
from  the  heat,  uhen  the  blast  of  the  terrible  (or  of  the  tijrants)  was  lihe  a 
storm  against  a  wall.  The  nations  shall  reverence  Jehovah,  not  merely  as 
the  destroyer  of  Babylon,  but  as  the  deliverer  of  his  people,  for  whose  sake 
that  catastrophe  was  brought  about.  Tiyo  is  not  mcrel}^  strength  in  the 
abstract,  but  a  strong  place  or  fortress.  ?"!!  and  P^?!]?  are  epithets  often 
applied  to  Israel  considered  as  a  sufferer.  The  two  figures  of  extreme  heat 
and  a  storm  of  rain  are  combined  to  express  the  idea  of  persecution  or  afflic- 
tion. "•?  may  also  be  taken  in  its  usual  sense  oi  for,  as  pointing  out  the 
reason  why  protection  was  required.  n-1"l  does  not  directly  denote  wrath, 
but  breath,  and  here  a  violent  breathing,  as  indicative  of  anger.  It  is  thus 
explained  by  Gescnius  (Zornhauch),  while  Ewald  gratuitously  lowers  the 
tone  of  the  descriptions  by  translating  the  word  snorting  (Schnauben). 
Jarchi  explains  "IT  ^"'T  (wall-storm),  as  denoting  a  storm  which  overthrows 
or  destroys  a  wall.  The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  the  Targum,  Peshito, 
and  Vulgate,  and  approved  by  most  of  the  recent  -^Titers.  Knobel  objects 
that  the  phrase  docs  not  naturally  suggest  the  idea  of  subversion  or  destruc- 
tion, and  on  that  account  adopts  the  reading  l"''!  proposed  by  Cappellus, 
and  approved  by  Vitringa,  Lowth,  and  Dathe.  The  phrase  would  then 
mean  a  cold  or  winter  storm.  There  is  no  need,  however,  of  a  change  in 
the  text,  although  Knobel's  objection  to  the  common  explanation  is  well 
founded.  The  Hebrew  phrase  naturally  signifies  precisely  what  the  English 
Version  has  expressed,  to  wit,  a  storm  against  a  wall,  denoting  the  direction 
and  the  object  of  the  violence,  but  not  its  issue.  As  a  storm  of  I'ain  beats 
upon  a  wall,  so  the  Babylonian  persecution  beat  upon  the  captive  Jews. 
The  simple  but  striking  and  impressive  imagery  of  this  verse  is  very  far 
from  indicating  an  inferior  writer  or  a  recent  date  of  composition.  It  is 
not  strange,  however,  that  this  fine  passage  should  be  deemed  unworthy  of 
Isaiah  or  his  times  by  those  who  look  upon  Macphersou's  Ossian  as  a  relic 
of  antiquity. 


Ver.  5-7.]  ISAIAH  XXV.  ,  415 

5.  As  heat  in  a  droucjht  (or  in  a  dry  place),  the  noise  of  strangers  wilt 
thou  hring  down;  {as)  heat  hy  the  shadow  of  a  cloud,  [so)  shall  the  song 
of  the  tyrants  he  hrought  low.  The  sufferings  of  Israel  under  oppression 
shall  be  mitigated  and  relieved  as  easily  and  quietly  as  the  intense  heat  of 
the  sun  by  an  intervening  cloud.  The  noise  mentioned  in  the  first  clause 
is  probably  the  tumult  of  battle  and  conquest,  and  the  song  in  the  last 
clause  the  triumphal  song  of  the  victorious  enemy.  The  meaning  branch 
is  mora  agreeable  to  usage,  but  not  so  appropriate  in  this  connection.  De 
Die;  do  Ci'aaslation  of  the  last  words,  the  pruning  (or  excision)  of  the  tyrants 
shall  bi.ir  tvUness,  is  extremely  forced.  Still  worse  is  that  of  Junius  and 
Tremellius  :  it  (the  heat)  answered  (or  favoured)  the  branch  of  the  oppressors. 
The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  both  the  clauses,  though  the  first  is  elliptical, 
and  the  idea  of  a  shadowy  cloud  must  be  supphed  from  the  second.  Gese- 
nius  makes  njy  intransitive  ;  the  later  Germans  take  it  as  a  Hiphil  form 
(Jie  shall  bring  low),  correbponding  to  ^330  in  the  other  clause.  Barnes 
removes  the  enallage  by  rendering  ^^V  in  the  second  person.  Koppe  and 
Bauer  most  gratuitously  read  it  as  a  passive,  '"l.^VI.  As  P*V  is  properly  an 
abstract,  it  may  be  applied  either  to  time  or  place,  a  dry  season  or  a  desert, 
without  affecting  the  sense.  The  Seventy  appear  to  have  read  P*V  Zion, 
which  would  change  the  sense  entirely. 

6.  And  Jehovah  of  hosts  will  make,  for  all  nations,  in 'this  mountain,  a 
feast  of  fat  things,  a  feast  of  wines  on  the  lees,  of  fat  things,  full  of  mar- 
row, of  u-ines  on  the  lees  xrell  refined.  Jerusalem,  hitherto  despised  and 
oppressed,  shall  yet  be  a  source  of  attraction,  nourishment  and  exhilara- 
tion to  mankind.  This  verse  resumes  the  thread  of  the  discourse,  which 
was  interrupted  at  the  end  of  the  last  chapter,  for  the  purpose  of  inserting 
the  triumphal  song  (vers.  1-5).  Having  there  said  that  Jehovah  and  his 
elders  should  appear  in  glory  on  mount  Zion,  he  now  shews  what  is  there 
to  be  bestowed  upon  the  nations.  D^JO'ti'  properly  me'^us  fatnesses,  here  put 
for  rich  and  dainty  food.  Clericus  strangely  supplies  sheep,  as  if  D''JO£i' 
were  an  adjective.  DnJDt^'  means  the  lees  of  wine,  as  being  the  keepers 
(from  '^'^y^,  to  keep),  or  preservers  of  the  colour  and  flavour.  It  is  here  put 
for  wine  kept  long  upon  the  lees,  and  therefore  old  and  of  superior  quality. 
D^ppTO  probably  means  strained  or  filtered.  Q''npp  from  HTO  is  put  for 
the  more  usual  form  D*n)Op,  in  order  to  assimilate  it  to  the  other  word. 
This  verse  contains  a  general  statement  of  the  relation  which  Jerusalem  or 
Zion  should  sustain  to  the  whole  world,  as  a  source  of  moral  influence. 
There  is  nothing  to  indicate  the  time  when  the  promise  should  be  fulfilled, 
nor  indeed  to  restrict  it  to  one  time  exclusively.  As  the  ancient  seat  of  the 
true  religion,  and  as  the  cradle  of  the  church  which  has  since  overspread 
the  nations,  it  has  always  more  or  less  fulfilled  the  ofiice  here  ascribed  to  it. 

7.  And  he  will  swallow  up  [i.  e.  destroy)  in  this  mountain  the  face  of  the 
veil,  the  veil  upon  all  peoples,  and  the  weh,  the  (one)  woven  over  all  the 
nations.  The  influence  to  go  forth  from  this  centre  shall  dispel  the  dark- 
ness both  of  ignorance  and  soitow  which  now  broods  over  the  world.  The 
subject  of  the  verb  is  of  course  Jehovah.  By  the  face  of  the  veil,  some 
understand  the  veil  itself.  Others  suppose  a  metathesis  for  the  ved  of  the 
face.     Lowth  adopts  the  reading  in  one  manuscript,  which  sets  ^J3  before 

D''Oyn  ?D.  Gesenius,  with  more  probability,  infers  from  the  analogous 
expression  in  Job  xli.  5,  that  the  veil  or  covering  is  here  described  as  bein« 
the  surface,  or  upper  side  of  the  object  covered.  Most  interpreters  suppose 
an  allusion  to  the  practice  of  veihng  the  face  as  a  sign  of  mourning,  which 
agrees  well  with  the  next  verse,  and  is  no  doubt  included,  but  the  words 


416  ISAUH  XX  V.  [Veb.  8. 

seem  also  to  express  the  idea,  of  a  veil  upon  the  undcrstandiug.  [Vide 
supni,  chap.  xxii.  8.)  Some  have  explained  the  words  as  relating  to  the 
covcrinf  of  the  faces  of  condemned  criminals  ;  but  this  is  neither  justified 
bv  usa"e  nor  appropriate  in  this  connection.  Gesenius  makes  the  second 
131^  an  active  participle  of  unusual  form,  chosen  in  order  to  assimilate  it  to 
the  foregoing  noun  {the  cover  coveriiuj).  Lut  as  the  language  contains  traces 
of  the  usual  form  t3<,  and  as  the  forms  here  used  arc  not  onl}'  similar,  but 
identical,  it  seems  more  natural  to  suppose  an  emphatic  repetition  of  the 
noun  itself,  especially  as  such  repetitions  are  so  frequent  in  the  foregoing 
chapter.  Some  of  the  ancient  versions,  deriving  HSDD  from  a  verbal  root 
meaning  to  anoint,  explain  the  cause  as  threatening  the  fall  of  a  tyrannical 
power.  Thus  the  Targum  has  "the  face  of  the  chief  who  rules  over  all 
peoples,  and  the  face  of  the  king  who  rules  over  all  kingdoms."  Henderson 
deduces  from  the  Arabic  analogy  the  specific  and  appropriate  sense  of  wch 
or  weaving. 

8.   He  has  suudloiced  up  death  for  ever,  and  the  Lord  Jehovah  xripes  auay 
tears  from  off  all  faces,  and  the  reproach  of  his  pjeople  he  will  take  auay  from 
off  all  the  earth,  for  Jehovah  hath  spoken  (it).     The  people  of  God,  who 
seemed  to  be  extinct,  shall  be  restored  to  life,  their  grief  exchanged  for  joy, 
and  their  disgrace  for  honour  in  the  presence  of  the  world,  a  result  for 
■which  he  pledges  both  his  power  and  foreknowledge.     The  preterite  form 
yV?  may  either  be  explained  as  a  descriptive  present,  or  as  indicating  some- 
thinf^  previous  in  point  of  time  to  what  is  mentioned  afterwords.     Hen- 
derson objects  to  the  rendering  of  the  Piel  by  the  English  swallow  vp ; 
but  the  sense  of  destroying,  which  he  prefers,  is  evidently  secondary  and 
derivative.     Barnes,  on  the  other  hand,  supposes  a  specific  allusion  to  a 
maehtrom,  which  is  erring  in  the  opposite  extreme.     Roseumliller  under- 
stands the  first  clause  as  a  promise,  that  in  the  golden  age  which  Isaiah 
anticipated  wars  and  mutual  violence  should  cease ;  Gesenius  as  a  promise 
of  immortality,  like  that  which  man  enjoyed  before  the  fall.     Hendewerk 
applies  it  to  the  death  and  immortality  of  Israel  as  a  nation.     The  true 
sense  seems  to  be,  that  all  misery  and  suffering,  comprehended  under  the 
generic  name  of  death,    should  be  completely  done  away.     It  is,  then,  a 
description  of  the  ultimate  effects  of  the  influence  before  described  as  flowing 
from  mount  Zion,  or  the  church  of  God.     In  its   higher  sense  this  may 
never  be  realised  by  any  individual  till  after  death.     Paul  says  accordingly 
(1  Cor.  XV.  54),  that  when  this  corruptible  shall  have  put  on  incoiTuption, 
and  this  mortal  shall  have  put  on  immortality,  then  shall  be  brought  to  pass 
the  saying  that  is  written,  xan'TrodTi  d  ^dvaroc  si;  v/jcoj.     As  this  is  not  an 
explanation  of  the  text  before  us,  nor  even  a  citation  of  it  in  the  way  of  argu- 
ment, but  merely  a  sublime  description,  all  that  it  was  necessary  to  express 
was  the  final,  perpetual,  triumphant  abolition  of  death.     The  phrase   iig 
v/ko;,  therefore  (which  is  also  found  in  Theodotion's  Version),  although  not 
a  strict  translation  of  nV?.*?,  is  no  departure  from  its  essential  meaning.    In 
its  primary  import,  the  clause  is  a  promise  to  God's  people,  corresponding 
to  the  foregoing  promise  to  the  nations.    While,  on  the  one  hand,  he  would 
lift  the  veil  from  the  latter,  and  admit  them  to  a  feast  upon  Zion,  on  the 
other,  he  would  abolish  death,  and  wipe  tears  from  the  faces  of  his  people. 
The  restriction  of  these  last  expressions  to  the  pains  of  death,  or  to  the 
sorrow  of  bereavement,  detracts  from  the  exquisite  beauty  of  the  passage, 
■which  the  poet  Bums  (as  Barnes  informs  us)  could  not  read  without  weep- 
ing, a  sufficient  proof  that  he  was  not  aware  of  the  German  discovery,  that 


Yer.  9,  10.]  ISAIAH  XXV.  417 

this  predictiou  is  an  exceedingly  lame  and  flat  composition,  quite  unworthy 
of  the  Prophet  to  whom  it  has  from  time  immemorial  been  erroneously 
ascribed. 

9.  And  one  shall  say  (or  tlieij  shall  say')  in  that  day,  Lo,  this  is  our  God; 
lie  have  waited  for  him,  and  he  will  save  us ;  this  is  Jehovah;  tve  have  waited 
forliim;  let  us  rejoice  and  he  glad  in  his  salvation.  When  these  gi'acious 
promises  shall  be  fulfilled,  those  who  have  trusted  in  them  shall  no  longer 
be  ashamed  of  their  strong  confidence,  because  it  will  be  justified  b}'  the 
event,  and  they  will  have  nothing  left  but  to  rejoice  in  the  fulfilment  of 
their  hopes.  This  is  our  God,  this  is  Jehovah;  as  if  they  had  said.  This 
is  the  God  of  whom  we  have  spoken,  and  for  trusting  in  whom  we  have  so 
often  been  derided.  We  have  waited  long,  but  he  has  come  at  last,  to 
vindicate  his  truth  and  our  reliance  on  him.  The  augmented  futures  at 
the  close  may  either  denote  fixed  determination  (we  will  rejoice,  we  will  he 
glad),  or  a  proposition  [let  us  then  rejoice),  for  which  the  language  has  no 
other  distinct  form. 

10.  For  the  hand  of  Jehovah  shall  rest  npon  this  mountain,  and  Moab 
shall  be  trodden  down  under  him  (or  in  Ids  place)  as  straw  is  trodden  in  the 
icaler  of  the  dunghill.  While  Israel  shall  thus  enjoy  the  permanent  pro- 
tection of  Jehovah,  his  inveterate  enemies  shall  experience  ignominious 
destruction.  God's  hand  is  the  symbol  of  his  power.  Its  resting  on  an 
object  is  the  continued  exercise  of  that  power,  whether  for  good  or  evil. 
This  is  detennined  by  the  nature  of  the  object,  as  this  mountain  cannot  well 
mean  anything  but  what  is  meant  in  vers.  6,  7, 'to  wit,  mount  Zion,  or  the 
Church  of  God,  and  the  promise  of  the  foregoing  context  must  of  course  be 
continued  here.  Moab  and  Edom  were  the  two  hereditary  and  inveterate 
enemies  of  Israel,  their  hatred  being  rendered  more  annoying  and  conspicu- 
ous by  their  affinity  and  neighbouring  situation.  Hence  they  are  repeatedly 
mentioned,  separately  or  together,  as  the  representatives  of  obstinate  and 
maligant  enemies  in  general.  Henderson  insists  upon  the  word's  being 
taken  in  its  literal  import ;  but  this  is  not  excluded  in  the  usual  intei-jDreta- 
tion.  As  the  name  British,  in  our  own  revolutionary  war,  became  equiva- 
lent to  hostile,  without  losing  its  specific  sense,  so  might  the  Prophets 
threaten  Moab  with  God's  vengeance,  without  meaning  to  exclude  from  the 
denunciation  other  like-minded  enemies.  This  wide  interpretation,  both  of 
Moab  and  Edom,  is  confiiTued  by  the  fact  that  one  of  them  is  often  men- 
tioned where  both  would  seem  to  be  equally  included.  The  figure  in  the 
last  clause  is  strongly  expressive,  both  of  degradation  and  destruction. 
Moab  is  likened  not  only  to  straw,  but  to  straw  left  to  rot  for  the  dunghill. 
The  idea  of  subjection  and  ruin  is  expressed  by  the  figui'e  of  treading  down 
or  trampling  under  foot.  ^'^'^  is  commonly  translated  thresh  ;  but  as  the 
oriental  threshing  was  performed  for  the  most  part  by  the  feet  of  cattle,  this 
sense  and  that  of  treading  down  are  really  coincident.  In  reference  to  the 
same  usage,  the  Septuagint,  Peshito,  and  Vulgate,  introduce  the  word 
waggons,  meaning  the  heavy  carts  or  threshing  machines  of  the  East. 
Lowth  conjectures  that  they  read  n3D"lD  for  HJOntD ;  but  the  former  word 
denotes  a  chariot,  especially  a  chariot  of  war,  and  the  versions  in  question 
do  not  necessarily  imply  a  difierence  of  text.  According  to  some  writers, 
nJDIO  is  the  name  of  a  city,  Madmenah,  which  may  at  one  time  have  be- 
longed to  Moab,  and  be  mentioned  here  on  account  of  some  local  peculiarity. 
Henderson  thinks  there  can  be  no  allusion  to  this  place ;  but  it  is  perfectly 
accordant  with  the  usage  of  the  sacred  writers  to  suppose  that  the  word  was 

VOL.  I.  D  d 


418  ISAIAH  XXV.  [Ver.  11,  12. 

here  intencleJ  to  convey  a  contemptuous  allusion  to  the  primaiy  meaning  of 
the  name  in  question.  As  an  ai)pellativo,  it  is  a  noun  of  place  derived  from 
PT,  and  denoting  either  a  manured  field  or  a  dunghill.  The  Iceri,  or 
Masoretic  reading  in  the  margin,  has  103,  a  poetical  equivalent  of  3,  the 
preposition  in.  The  keihib,  or  textual  reading,  which  is  probably  more 
ancient,  is  ''D2,  in  the  water.  This,  with  the  next  word,  may  denote  a  pool 
in  which  the  straw  was  left  to  putrefy.  In  Job  ix.  30  we  have  an  opposite 
correction,  1J33  iu  the  text,  and  ^03  in  the  margin.  Vndrr  hiw  may  either 
mean  under  Jehovah  or  under  himself,  that  is,  in  his  own  place,  in  the 
country  of  Moab,  or  wherever  he  is  found. 

11.  And  he  shall  sjnead  forth  his  hands  in  the  midst  of  it,  as  the  suimnier 
spreadelh  forth  his  hands  to  snim  ;  and  he  shall  humble  his  pride,  together 
with  the  sjwils  (or  del-ices')  of  his  hands.  From  this  ignominious  doom  Moab 
shall  in  vain  try  to  save  himself;  his  pride  shall  be  humbled,  and  his 
struggles  only  serve  to  precipitate  his  ruin.  Ha^^ng  compared  the  fall  of 
Moab  to  the  treading  down  of  straw  iu  a  filthy  pool,  the  Prophet  carries  out 
his  figure  here,  but  with  a  change  so  slight  and  at  the  same  time  so  natural, 
as  almost  to  escape  observation,  while  it  greatly  adds  to  the  life  of  the  des- 
cription. The  down-trodden  straw  now  becomes  a  livmg  person,  who 
struggles  in  the  filthy  pool  to  save  himself  fi'om  drowning,  but  in  vain. 
The  older  writers  for  the  most  part  make  Jeltovah  the  subject  of  the  verb  at 
the  beginning  of  the  sentence.  But  the  image  then  becomes  incongruous, 
not  onlj-  as  applied  to  God,  but  as  fixiling  to  express  any  appropriate  action 
upon  his  part.  It  is,  indeed,  explained  to  mean  that  God  will  strike  him 
here  and  there,  or  in  every  part,  as  a  swimmer  strikes  tho  waves  in  all 
du'ections  ;  but  this  idea  might  have  been  expressed  more  clearly  by  a 
hundred  other  images.  So  too  13"ip3  is  explained  to  mean  that  God  would 
strike,  not  merely  on  the  surface  or  extremities  of  Moab,  but  in  the  very 
midst  of  him,  or  to  his  very  centre,  which  is  still  more  forced  and  arbitrary. 
The  only  idea  naturall}-  suggested  by  the  images  employed,  is  that  of  a 
drowning  man  struggling  in  the  water.  The  latest  writers  therefore  follow 
Grotius  in  referring  t^"i3  to  3X10,  and  the  suflix  in  "I31p3  to  the  pool  or  dung- 
hill. ri13"lX  has  been  variously  explained  as  meaning  strength,  spoils,  arms, 
armpits,  joi)its.  Sec.  The  sense  hi/  the  strength  of  his  hands  {i.e.  God's)  is 
precluded  by  the  preposition  ^V,  which  does  not  indicate  the  instrument  or 
means,  but  signifies  together  with.  Ilosenmiiller  and  Ewald  prefer  the  mean- 
ing joints,  founded  on  an  Ai'abic  analogy.  Gesenius  adheres  to  Hebrew 
usage  and  explains  the  word  to  mean  devices,  plots  (insidiis  which  Robin- 
son translates  ambuscades,  a  word  of  less  extensive  import  than  the  Latin 
one).  The  mention  of  the  hands  is  explained  by  Gesenius  from  the  fact 
that  SIX  primarily  means  to  knit,  spin,  or  weave.  It  is  hard,  however,  to 
resist  the  impression,  that  these  last  words  have  respect  to  the  image  in  the 
first  clause,  and  describe  the  movements  of  the  swimmer's  hands  in  endea- 
vouring to  save  himself.  Eichhoru,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel  cany  the  figure 
through  the  verse,  explaining  IHIXJ  to  mean  his  back  or  his  rising,  and  the 
last  words  either  his  arms  or  the  motions  of  his  hands.  But  most  inter- 
preters suppose  the  figure  to  be  dropped  in  this  clause,  and  the  humbling 
of  Moab  to  be  here  foretold  in  literal  terms.  Lowth's  proposition  to  read 
nnK'  for  nriL*'  {he  that  sinks  for  he  that  swims)  is  not  only  needless,  but  in- 
jmious  to  the  force  of  the  expression,  puts  an  unusual  sense  upon  the  word 
supposed,  and  does  away  with  an  example  of  a  very  common  Hebrew  idiom, 
that  of  combining  verbs  with  their  particles  and  derivative  nouns. 

12.  And  the  fortress  of  the  high  fort  of  thy  walls  he  hath  cast  dotvn, 


Ver.  1.]  ISAIAir  XXVI.  419 

humbled,  hroiujlit  to  the  ground,  to  the  very  dust  (or  e?'e?i  to  the  dust).  Many 
interpreters  suppose  that  the  Prophet  here  reverts  from  Moab  to  the  city 
mentioned  in  the  second  verse.  Others  more  naturally  understand  this  as 
the  close  of  the  prediction  against  Moab  ;  first,  because  abrupt  transitions 
should  not  be  assumed  without  necessity  ;  and  secondly,  because  the  verse 
appears  to  be  an  amplification  of  the  phrase  irilXJ  '^''SEJ'n  in  that  before  it. 
■)i'30  and  3J£J'D  are  equivalent  in  usage,  though  distinct  in  etymology.  Both 
are  local  nouns,  and  mean  a  place  of  safety  ;  but  the  prominent  idea  in  the 
first  is  that  of  fortification,  in  the  second  that  of  loftiness.  Some  manu- 
scripts read  '^^ribn  in  the  feminine,  in  which  case  the  city  or  country  is  the 
object  of  address,  in  the  other  the  nation,  or  Moab  represented  as  a  man. 
The  specific  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  cannot  be  distinctly  traced  in  his- 
tory. It  was  certainly  verified,  however,  in  the  downfall  of  the  Moabitish 
nation,  whenever  it  took  place. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

This  chapter  contains  a  song  of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  to  be  sung 
by  Israel  after  his  deliverance,  vers.  1-19.  To  this  is  added  a  postscript, 
intimating  that  the  time  for  such  rejoicing  was  not  yet  at  hand,  vers.  20,  21. 

The  song  opens  with  an  acknowledgment  of  God's  protection  and  an  ex- 
hortation to  confide  therein,  vers.  1-4.  This  is  founded  on  the  exhibition 
of  his  righteousness  and  power  in  the  destruction  of  his  foes  and  the  oppres- 
sors of  his  people,  vers.  5-11.  The  Church  abjures  the  service  of  all  other 
sovereigns,  and  vows  perpetual  devotion  to  him  by  whom  it  has  been  de- 
hvered  and  restored,  vers.  12-15.  Her  utter  incapacity  to  save  herself  is 
then  contrasted  with  God's  power  to  restore  his  people  to  new  life,  with  a 
joj^ul  anticipation  of  which  the  song  concludes,  vers.  17-19.  The  addi- 
tional sentences  contain  a  beautiful  and  tender  intimation  of  the  trials, 
which  must  be  endured  before  these  glorious  events  take  place,  with  a 
solemn  assurance  that  Jehovah  is  about  to  visit  both  his  people  and  their 
enemies  with  chastisement,  vers.  20,  21. 

1.  In  that  day  shall  this  song  he  sung  in  the  land  of  Judah  :  We  have  a 
strong  city  ;  salvation  luill  he  place  [as)  walls  and  breastwork.  The  condi- 
tion and  feelings  of  the  people  after  their  return  from  exile  are  expressed 
by  putting  an  ideal  song  into  their  mouths.  Though  the  first  clause  does 
not  necessarily  mean  that  this  should  actually  be  sung,  but  merely  that  it 
might  be  sung,  or  that  it  would  be  appropriate  to  the  times  and  to  the  feelings 
of  the  people,  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  it  was  actually  used  for  this 
purpose,  which  could  more  readily  be  done  as  it  is  written  in  the  form  and 
manner  of  the  Psalms,  with  which  it  exhibits  many  points  of  resemblance. 
The  day  meant  is  the  day  of  deliverance  which  had  just  been  promised. 
Lowth  connects  in  the  land  of  Judah  with  what  follows,  in  violation  of  the 
accents  and  without  the  least  necessity.  Nor  can  it  be  supposed  that  the 
song  itself  would  have  begun  with  such  a  formula,  unless  the  singers  are 
assumed  to  be  the  Jews  still  in  exile,  which  is  hardly  consistent  with  the 
following  verse.  Knobel,  on  the  other  hand,  asserts  that  the  singers  are 
no  doubt  the  Jews  left  by  the  Babylonians  in  the  land  of  Judah.  This  is 
necessarily  involved  in  his  hypothesis,  that  chaps,  xxiv.-xxvii.  were  written  im- 
mediately after  Nebuchadnezzar's  conquest.  (See  the  introduction  to  chap, 
xxiv.)  Another  inference  from  this  supposition  is,  that  the  verse  before  us 
describes  Jerusalem  in  its  dismantled  state,  as  still  protected  by  the  divine 


420  IS  AT  AH  XX  r I.  [Yer.  2,  3. 

favour,  whereas  it  is  rather  a  description  of  the  divine  help  and  favour,  as  tlie 
cit3-'.s  best  defence,  or  as  that  without  which  all  others  would  be  useless.  Ewald, 
however,  makes  it  mean  that  walls  and  bulwarks  give  salvation  {//eil  gehen 
Mauern  und  Grahen),  which,  besides  the  harsh  construction,  yields  a  sense 
directly  opposite  to  that  intended.  The  obvious  and  natural  construction  of 
JT'Ji"  is  with  nin^  understood.  The  future  form  implies  that  the  description 
is  prospective.  70  is  the  outer  and  lower  wall  protecting  the  trench  or  moat 
of  a  fortification.  The  whole  phrase  is  rendered  by  the  Septuagint  7i7yoi 
xai  crsg/Vs/^oi.  Junius  adds  to  his  translation  of  this  verse  the  word  duendu 
so  as  to  make  the  next  the  words  of  God  himself. 

2.  Open  ye  the  (fates,  and  let  the  r'ujhteous  nation  enter,  krepin;/  truth  (or 
faith).  The  supposition  of  responsive  choruses  gives  a  needless  complexity 
to  the  structure  of  the  passage.  The  speakers  are  the  same  as  in  the  first 
verse,  and  the  words  are  addressed  to  those  who  kept  the  doors.  Knobel 
understands  this  as  the  language  of  the  remaining  Jews,  exhorting  them- 
selves or  one  another  to  receive  the  returning  exiles.  These  are  described 
as  rujhtenKs  and  as  keepbif]  faith,  probably  in  reference  to  the  cessation  of 
idolatry  among  the  Jews  during  the  exile.  Lowth  connects  "lOt^'  D''Jl;^X 
with  the  first  clause  of  the  next  verse.  J.  D.  Michaelis  makes  it  an 
independent  proposition  {he  preserves  the  faithful).  Knobel  says  that 
the  use  of  ^^^  in  application  to  the  Jews  is  a  later  usage,  which  asser- 
tion is  undoubtedly  true  if  every  place  where  it  occurs  is  assumed  to  be  of 
recent  date. 

3.  The  mind  stayed  {on  thee)  thou  u-ilt preserve  in  peace  {in),  peace  {i.  e.  in 
perfect  peace),  because  in  thee  {it  is)  confident  (literally  confided).  This  is 
a  general  truth  deduced  from  the  experience  of  those  who  are  supposed  to 
be  the  speakers.  Lowth  adds  the  last  words  of  the  foregoing  verse  constant 
in  the  truth,  stayed  in  mind,  by  which  nothing  is  gained,  and  the  Masoretic 
interpunction  needlessly  violated.  Calvin  makes  the  first  two  words  an  in- 
dependent clause  {cogitatio  fixa),  and  Ewald  seems  to  adopt  the  same  con- 
struction {die  Einhildung  steht  fest),  probably  meanmg  that  what  follows 
is  a  just  thought  or  a  certain  truth.  Luther  seems  to  refer  it  to  God's 
promise  (nach  gewisser  Zusage).  But  the  best  construction  is  the  common 
one,  which  connects  II^D  "IV  with  the  following  words,  "i^"*  is  the  inven- 
tion (or  perhaps  the  constitution)  of  the  mind,  put  for  the  mind  itself.  The 
elliptical  construction  in  the  English  Bible  {him  ivhose  mind  is  stayed  on 
thee)  is  not  very  natural  ;  still  less  so  that  of  Knobel,  who  refers  "|"IDD  to  the 
person  understood,  and  makes  "IV'  a  qualifying  noun  {stayed  as  to  mind), 
citing  as  examples  of  a  similar  inversion  chap.  xxii.  2  ;  Nahum  iii.  1.  Barnes 
omits  "I>'."1  altogether  in  his  version  {him  that  is  stayed  on  thee).  Hender- 
son gives  the  true  construction,  making  "i'l>n  govern  IV.!  directly,  though  he 
renders  '^'^^^^  firm,  which  is  hardly  an  adequate  translation,  as  the  word 
necessarily  includes  the  idea  of  reliance,  i.  e.  upon  God.  Ewald  derives  "i'i»^ 
from  "IVJ  instead  of  IV?,  translates  it  thou  wilt  form  (or  create)  peace.  For 
this  no  reason  can  be  given,  except  that  it  evolves  a  new  paronomasia,  both 
in  sense  and  sound,  between  the  noun  and  verb.  The  mere  assonance 
exists  of  course,  however  the  words  may  be  explained;  and  though  Gese- 
nius  was  so  unhappy  as  to  overlook  it,  Knobel  has  copied  it  by  the  com- 
bination I'esten  festiyest.  The  idiomatic  iteration,  peace,  peace,  to 
express  a  superlative,  is  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  frequent  reduplica- 
tions of  the  twenty-fourth  chapter,  and  may  serve  to  shew,  that  the 
accumulation  of  such  idioms  there  arises  from  difference  of  subject  or  of 
sentiments  to  be  expressed,  and  not  from  want  of  genius  or  corruption  of 


Ver.  4,  5.J  ISAIAH  XXVI.  421 

taste.  There  is  no  need  of  explaining  n-1t31  as  a  passive  substituted  for  an 
active  participle.  The  word  corresponds  both  in  form  and  meaning  to 
assured  in  English. 

4.   Trust  ye  in  Jehovah  for  ever  (literally,  even  to  eternity),  for  in  Jah 
Jehovah  is  a  rock  of  ages  (or  an  everlasting  rock).     To  the  general  truth 
stated  in  ver.  3,  a  general  exhortation  is  now  added,  not  addressed  by  one 
chorus  to  another,  but  by  the  same  ideal  speakers  to  all  who  hear  them  or  are 
willing  to  receive  the  admonition.     This  is  one  of  the  few  places  in  which 
the   name  Jehovah  is  retained   by  the  common  English  version.     On  the 
origin  and  usage  of  the  name  ^\  vide  supra,  chap.  xii.  2.     The  occurrence 
of  the  combination  here  confirms  its  genuineness   there.     In  this  place  it 
is  at  least  as  old  as  Aquila,  who  has  sv  rip  xxi^iu)  x'j'^ioc.     Knobel,  however, 
chooses  to  reject  nin^  as  a  mere  explanation  or  correction  of  HJ,  added  by 
a  later  hand.     Cocceius,  in  accordance  with  his  own  etymology  of  ^\,  trans- 
lates it  in  decentia  Jehovce,  which  is  very  much  like  nonsense.     Vitringa 
makes  these  names  the  subject  of  the  proposition  (Jah  Jehovah  est  rupes 
swriiJorum),  according  to  De  Dieu's  observation,  that  the  preposition  3  is 
often  pleonastic.     The  same  construction  is  adopted  by  Gesenius,  on  the 
ground  that  3  is  frequently  a  beth  essentice,  corresponding  to  the  French  en 
in  the  phrase  en  vol,  i.e.  in  (the  character  or  person  of)  a  king.     The 
existence  of  this  idiom  in  Hebrew  is  denied,  both  by  Winer  in  his  Lexicon, 
and  Ewald  in  his  grammar,  but  maintained  against  them  by  Gesenius  in 
his  Thesaurus.     It  is  evident,  however,  that  in  all  cases  where  it  is  as- 
sumed, this  conclusion  can  only  be  defended  on  the  ground  of  exegetical 
necessity,  and  that  such  analogies  cannot  require,  or  even  authorize,  the 
preference  of  this  obscure  and  harsh  construction  where  the  obvious  and 
simple  one  is  perfectly  admissible.     In  the  case  before  us,  Gesenius  is 
obliged  to  create  a  necessity  for  his  construction,  by  gratuitously  making 
v\\  the  subject,  and  T\\T\)  the  predicate,  of  the  proposition.     This  he  chooses 
to  translate  Jehovah  is  God,  but  it  ought  to  have  been  Jah  is  Jehovah,  and 
as  one  of  these  names  is  explained  by  himself  to  be  a  mere  abbreviation 
of  the  other,  the  clause  becomes  an  identical  proposition,  meaning  nothing 
more  than  that  Jehovah  is  himself.     All  that  is  gained  by  the  supposition 
of  a  heth  essentice  may  be  secured,  without  departing  from   the   ordinary 
meaning  of  the  preposition,  by  supplying  an  active  verb,  as  in  Augusti's 
Version,  in  him  {ye  have)  an  everlasting  rock.     But  the  simplest  and  most 
accurate  of  all  constructions  is  the  common  one,  retained  by  Ewald,  who 
omits  neither  Jah  nor  the  particle  before  it,  but  translates  the  clause,  ^br 
in  Jah  Jahve,  is  an  everlasting  rock.     This  figurative  name,  as  applied  to 
God,  includes  the  two  ideas  of  a  hiding-place  and  a  foundation,  or  the  one 
complex  idea  of  di  immanent  asylum.     Barnes  translates  the  whole  phrase, 
everlasting  refuge.     Lo\vth's  never  failing  protection  is  correct  in  sense,  but 
in  form  a  diluted  paraphrase. 

5.  For  he  hath  brought  dotvn  the  inhabitants  of  the  high  place,  the  exalted 
city  ;  he  will  lay  it  low,  he  will  lay  it  low,  to  the  very  groiind ;  he  will  bring 
it  to  the  very  dust.  He  has  proved  himself  able  to  protect  his  people,  and 
consequently  worthy  to  be  trusted  by  them,  in  his  sic!;nal  ovci'throw  of  that 
great  power  by  which  they  were  oppressed.  n3Jti*J  means  lofty  in  the 
sense  of  being  inaccessible,  and  is  especially  applied  to  fortresses,  as  we 
have  seen  with  respect  to  the  derivative  noun  331^0,  chap.  xxv.  12.  Hit- 
zig  explains  ''^^'''  to  mean  those  enthroned ;  but  its  connection  with  WS^Ci 
requires  it  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  inhabitants.  The  alternation  of  the 
tenses  here  is  somewhat  remarkable.     Henderson  translates  them  all  as 


422  ISAIAE  XXVI.  Ver.  6-8. 

preterites ;  Barnes  uses  first  the  present,  then  the  preterite  ;  both  which 
constructions  are  entirely  arbitrary.  The  EngUsh  Version  more  correctly 
treats  them  all  as  presents,  which  is  often  allowable  where  the  forms  are 
intermingled,  and  is  also  adopted  by  the  latest  German  writers.  ]>ut  in 
this  case,  a  reason  can  be  given  for  the  use  of  the  two  tenses,  even  if  strictly 
understood.  The  Prophet  luoks  at  the  events  from  two  distinct  points  of 
observation,  his  own  and  that  of  the  ideal  speakers.  With  respect  to  the 
latter,  the  fixll  of  Babylon  was  past ;  with  respect  to  the  former  it  was  still 
future.  He  might  therefore  naturally  say,  even  in  the  same  sentence,  he 
has  hrowjht  it  low  and  he  shall  hrinfj  it  to  the  dust.  Cocceius,  as  usual, 
reproeluces  the  precise  form  of  the  Hebrew  sentence.  No  two  things  can  well 
be  more  unlike  than  the  looseness  of  this  writer's  exegesis  and  the  critical 
precision  of  his  mere  translation.  Henderson  thinks  the  Masoretic  inter- 
punction  wrong,  and  throws  nj?''Dw^''  into  the  first  clause,  to  which  arrange- 
ment there  are  three  objections :  first,  that  it  is  arbitrary  and  against  the 
textual  tradition  ;  second,  that  it  makes  the  suffix  in  the  verb  superfluous, 
the  object  having  been  expressed  before  ;  and  third,  that  it  renders  less 
efiective,  if  it  does  not  quite  destroy,  the  idiomatic  iteration  of  the  verb, 
which  is  characteristic  of  this  whole  prediction.  "IV  strictly  means  as  far 
as,  and  may  be  expressed  in  English,  either  by  the  phrase  even  to,  or  by 
the  use  of  the  intensive  very,  as  above  in  the  translation. 

G.  The  foot  shall  trample  on  it,  the  feet  of  the  afflicted,  the  steps  of  the 
tveak.  The  ruins  of  the  fallen  city  shall  be  trodden  under  foot,  not  only 
by  its  conquerors,  but  by  those  whom  it  oppressed.  Neither  ''^V  nor  ^"1 
strictly  signifies  poor.  The  prominent  idea  in  the  first  is  that  of  svffrrlng, 
in  the  second  that  of  iveakness.  They  are  here  used,  like  ?"1  and  I^^S  in 
chap.  XXV.  4,  as  epithets  of  Israel  while  subjected  to  the  Babylonian 
tyranny.  ''Oys,  which  Luther  translates  heels  (Fcrse),  and  Jimins  footsteps 
(vestigia),  is  here  a  poetical  equivalent  to  feet.  Henderson  here  translates 
the  verbs  in  the  present,  Barnes  more  exactly  in  the  future. 

7.  The  tvay  for  the  righteous  is  straight  (or  level);  thou  most  upright 
wilt  level  (or  rectify)  the  path  of  the  righteous.  A  man's  way  is  a  common 
Scriptural  figure  for  his  course  of  life.  A  straight  or  level  way  is  a  pros- 
perous life.  It  is  here  declared  that  the  course  of  the  righteous  is  a 
prosperous  one,  because  God  makes  it  so.  Dn't^'-D  strictly  denotes  straight- 
ness,  the  plural  being  used  as  an  abstract.  The  moral  sense  of  uprightness 
does  not  suit  the  connection.  "IK>''  may  either  be  construed  as  a  vocative, 
or  with  the  name  of  God  understood  {as  a  rightemis  God).  Ivnobel  makes 
it  an  adverbial  accusative,  thou  dost  rectify  the  path  of  the  righteous 
straight,  i.  e.  so  as  to  make  it  straight.  The  primary  idea  of  D7D  is  to 
render  even  ;  it  is  therefore  applied  both  to  balances  and  paths  ;  but  the 
two  applications  are  not  to  be  confounded  ;  paths  may  be  made  even,  but 
they  cannot  be  weighed. 

8.  Aho  in  the  way  cf  thy  judgments,  0  Jehovah,  we  have  tea  it  cd  for 
thee;  to  thy  name  and  thy  remembrance  (was  our)  soid's  desire.  For  this 
manifestation  of  thy  righteousness  and  goodness  we  have  long  been  waiting 
in  the  way  of  thy  judgments,  i.  e.  to  see  thee  come  forth  as  a  judge,  for 
the  vindication  of  thy  peojile  and  the  destruction  of  their  enemies.  Name 
and  remembrance  or  manorial  denote  the  manifestation  of  God's  attributes 
in  his  works.  Ewald  translates  the  second  fame  or  glory  (Ruhm).  J.  D. 
Michaelis  connects  the  first  words  with  the  seventh  verse,  "thou  dost 
regulate  the  path  of  the  righteous,  but  also  the  way  of  thy  judgments." 


Veb.  9,  10. J  ISAIAH  XXVI.  423 

Lowth  takes  Tl22ti'0  in  the  sense  of  laws  and  "lJ''1p  in  that  of  trusting.  It 
is  more  probable,  however,  that  the  same  idea  is  expressed  here  as  in 
chap.  XXV.  9. 

9.  {With)  mil  soul  have  I  desired  thee  in  the  nifjht ;  yea  (with)  my  spirit 
within  me  ivill  I  seek  thee  early :  for  tvhen  thy  judgments  (come)  to  the 
earth,  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  learn  righteousness.  The  desii-e  here 
expressed  is  not  a  general  desire  for  the  knowledge  and  favour  of  God,  but 
a  special  desire  that  he  would  manifest  his  righteousness  by  appearing 
as  a  judge.  This  explanation  is  required  by  the  connection  with  what  goes 
before  and  with  what  follows  in  this  very  verse.  Gesenius  takes  my  soxd 
as  a  periphrasis  for  /.  Maurer  supposes  this  to  be  in  apposition  with  the 
pronoun.  Ewald  and  Knobel  retain  the  old  construction,  which  supplies 
a  preposition  before  ""^^^^  or  regards  it  as  an  adverbial  accusative  or  qua- 
lifying noun,  corresponding  to  the  ablative  or  instrument  of  cause  in  Latin. 
The  night  is  mentioned,  not  as  a  figure  for  calamity  or  ignorance,  nor  as  a 
time  peculiarly  appropriate  to  meditation,  but  for  the  purpose  of  expressing 
the  idea,  that  he  feels  this  wish  at  all  times,  by  night  and  by  day.  This 
shews  that  the  recent  lexicogi-aphers  are  wrong  in  excluding  from  the  Piel 
of  "ini:i>  the  sense  of  seeking  in  the  morning,  seeking  early,  to  which  exclu- 
sion it  may  also  be  objected,  that  the  soundest  principles  of  lexicography 
tend  to  the  union  and  not  to  the  multiplication  of  roots.  The  question 
whether  these  are  the  words  of  the  Prophet,  or  of  each  of  the  people,  or  of 
a  choir  or  chorus  representing  them,  proceeds  upon  the  supposition  of  an 
artificial  structure  and  a  strict  adherence  to  rhetorical  propriety,  which 
have  no  real  existence  in  the  writings  of  the  Prophet.  The  sentiments, 
which  it  was  his  purpose  and  his  duty  to  express,  are  sometimes  uttered 
in  his  own  person,  sometimes  in  that  of  another,  and  these  difierent  forms 
of  speech  are  interchanged,  without  regard  to  the  figments  of  an  artificial 
rhetoric.  Some  give  to  X>X3  its  strict  sense  as  a  particle  of  comparison, 
and  understand  the  clause  to  mean  that  men  learn  hovv'  to  practise  right- 
eousness by  imitating  God's  example.  By  judgments,  here  as  in  the  fore- 
going context,  we  can  only  understand  judicial  providences.  The  doctrine 
of  the  verse  is,  that  a  view  of  God's  severity  is  necessary  to  convince  men 
of  his  justice.  The  Septuagint  has  [lakn  in  the  imperative,  which  gives 
a  good  sense,  but  is  forbidden  by  the  obvious  address  to  God  himself 
throughout  the  verse. 

10.  Let  the  tvicked  he  favoured,  he  does  not  learn  righteousness  ;  in  the 
land  of  right  he  will  do  ivrong,  and  will  not  see  the  exaltation  of  Jehovah. 
The  reasoning  of  the  preceding  verse  is  here  continued.  As  it  was  thei'e 
said  that  God's  judgments  were  necessary  to  teach  men  righteousness,  so  it 
is  here  said  that  continued  prosperity  is  insufficient  for  that  pui-pose.  The 
wicked  man  will  go  on  to  do  wickedly,  even  in  the  very  place  where  right 
conduct  is  peculiarly  incumbent.  Though  the  verse  is  in  the  form  of  a 
general  proposition,  and  as  such  admits  of  various  applications,  there  is 
obvious  reference  to  the  Babylonians,  who  were  not  only  emboldened  by 
impunity  to  do  wrong  in  the  general,  but  to  do  it  even  in  the  land  of  right 
or  rectitude,  the  holy  land,  Jehovah's  land,  where  such  transgressions  were 
peculiarly  offensive.  There  are  other  two  explanations  of  Hinb?  y:)^  which 
deserve  attention.  The  first  understands  the  phrase  to  mean,  in  the  midst 
of  a  righteous  population,  surrounded  by  examples  of  good  conduct.  The 
other  supposes  an  allusion,  not  to  moral  but  to  physical  rectitude  or 
straightness,  as  a  figure  for  prosperity.  This  last  would  make  the  clause 
a  repetition  of  the  sentiment  expressed  before  it,  viz.,  that  favour  and  in- 


424  ISAIAH  XXVI.  [Vee.  11,  12. 

dulgence  do  not  teach  men  righteousness.  But  neither  of  these  latter  ex- 
planations agrees  so  well  with  the  last  words  of  the  verse  as  the  one  first 
given,  according  to  which  they  represent  the  wrong-doer  as  not  knowing  or 
believing  or  considering  that  the  land  in  which  he  practises  his  wickedness, 
belongs  to  the  most  High  God.  J.  D,  Michaelis  explains  the  closing  words 
to  mean  that  God  is  too  exalted  to  be  seen  by  them  [den  zu  erhahenen 
Gott). 

11.  Jehovah,  thy  hand  is  high,  they  will  not  see  ;  (yes)  they  will  see  (and 
be  ashamed)  thy  zeal/or  thij people  ;  yea,  the  fire  of  ihine  enemies  shall  devour 
them.  The  tenses  in  this  verse  have  been  very  variously  and  arbitrarily 
explained.  Some  make  them  all  past,  others  all  future,  and  a  few  all  pre- 
sent. Even  the  double  future  (IVTH*  and  Itn"")  is  referred  to  difterent  tenses, 
past  and  future,  past  and  present,  present  and  future.  Thoy  have  not  seen, 
but  they  shall  see  ;  they  do  not  sec,  but  they  shall  see ;  they  did  not  sec,  bht 
they  do  see.  Some  make  Itn*  an  optative ;  hut  may  they  see  !  All  these 
constructions  are  grammatical,  but  the  very  fact  that  so  many  are  possible, 
makes  it  advisable  to  adhere  somewhat  rigorously  to  the  proper  meaning  of 
the  forms.  As  to  HDI,  it  matters  little  whether  it  be  rendered  as  a  preterite 
or  present,  as  the  one  implies  the  other  ;  but  as  to  P'^fH^  and  1Tn\  the  safest 
course  is  to  translate  them  both  ahke  as  simple  featm-es.  The  seeming 
contradiction  instantly  explains  itself,  as  being  a  kind  of  after-thought. 
They  will  not  see,  (but  yes)  they  will  see.  There  are  two  ways  of  connect- 
ing Dy  nX3p  with  what  precedes.  The  obvious  construction  found  in  most 
of  the  old  versions,  makes  it  the  object  of  the  verb  immediately  before  it : 
"  they  shall  be  ashamed  of  their-  zeal  against  (or  en\y  of)  the  people."  This 
of  com-se  supposes  ClJ?  HNJp  to  denote  the  envy  of  the  heathen  against  Israel, 
or  which  is  much  less  probable,  the  jealousy  of  Israel  with  respect  to  the 
accession  of  the  Gentiles.  But  as  usage  is  decidedly  in  favour  of  interpret- 
ing the  phrase  to  mean  the  jealousy  or  zeal  of  God  himself  in  behalf  of  his 
o^vn  people,  Gesenius  and  several  later  writers  construe  it  with  ITH''  and 
throw  1t^'3''1  into  a  parenthesis,  "they  shall  see  (and  be  ashamed)  the  zeal 
&c.,"  which  is  equivalent  to  saying,  "  they  shall  see  with  shame,  &c." 
Another  construction,  given  independently  by  Henderson  and  Knobel,  con- 
strues the  phrase  in  question,  not  as  the  object  of  a  verb  preceding,  but  as 
the  subject  of  the  verb  that  follows,  "  zeal  for  thy  people,  yea,  fire  against 
thine  enemies,  shall  devour  them  (or  may  it  devour  them)."  In  favour  of 
this  constniction  is  the  strict  agreement  of  the  sense  which  it  afibrds  with 
many  other  passages,  in  which  the  same  divine  acts  are  described  as  acts 
of  mercy  to  the  righteous,  and  of  wrath  to  the  wicked.  (See  for  example 
chap.  i.  27,  and  the  commentary  on  it.)  It  is  also  recommended  by  the 
strong  emphatic  meaning  which  it  gives  to  fl^<.  Knobel,  moreover,  makes  T""^* 
the  object  of  the  verb  73N*ri,  and  regards  the  suflix  to  the  latter  as  an  idio- 
matic pleonasm,  which  is  not  only  arbitrary  and  extremely  harsh  (and  there- 
fore not  required  by  a  few  examples  where  no  other  solution  of  the  S}-ntax 
is  admissible),  but  destructive  of  a  beautiful  antithesis  between  God's  zeal 
for  Ms  people  and  fire  for  his  enemies.  Of  the  two  constructions,  therefore, 
Henderson's  is  much  to  be  preferred.  Fire  does  not  simply  denote  war 
(Gesenius)  or  sudden  death  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  but  the  wTath  of  God,  as  a 
sudden,  rapid,  irresistible,  and  utterly  destroying  agent. 

12.  Jehovah,  thou  wilt  (jive  us  peace,  for  even  all  our  unrks  thou  hast 
wrouyht  fonts.  This  is  an  expression  of  strong  confidence  and  hope,  found- 
ed on  what  has  already  been  experienced.  God  certainly  would  fiivour 
them  in  future,  for  he  had  done  so  aheady.     The  translation  of  the  fii-st 


Ver.  13.]  ISAIAE  XXVI.  425 

verb  as  a  preterite  or  present,  though  admissible  if  necessary,  cannot  be 
justified  in  such  a  case  as  this,  where  the  strict  translation  gives  a  perfectly 
good  sense.  137  nS'JTl  literally  means  thoa  icilt  place  to  us,  which  some 
understand  to  mean  appoint  ov  ordain  for  us;  but  Gesenius  moi'e  correctly 
explains  it  as  the  converse  of  the  idiomatic  usage  of  1^3  to  f/ive  in  the  sense 
of  placing.  Peace  is,  as  often  elsewhere,  to  be  taken  in  the  wide  sense  of 
prosperity  or  welfare.  Q3,  though  omilted  in  translation  by  Gesenius  and 
others,  is  emphatic,  and  should  be  connected,  not  w4th  the  pronoun  or  the 
verb,  as  in  the  English  Version,  but  as  in  Hebrew  with  the  phrase  all  our 
irorks,  as  if  he  had  said,  even  all  our  works,  i.  e.,  all  v,'ithout  exception.  It 
is  commonly  agreed  among  interpreters,  that  our  works  here  means  not  the 
works  done  by  us  but  the  works  done  for  us,  i.e.  what  we  have  experienced, 
or  as  CaMn  expresses  it  in  French,  nos  affaires.  The  version  of  the  last 
clause  in  the  text  of  the  English  Bible  (thou  hast  wrought  all  our  works  in 
us)  is  connected  with  an  old  interpretation  of  the  verse,  as  directly  teaching 
the  doctrine  of  human  dependence  and  efficacious  gi-ace.  This  translation, 
however,  is  equally  at  variance  VN-ith  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  preposition 
(13?)  and  with  the  connection  here.  The  context,  both  before  and  after,  has 
respect,  not  to  spiritual  exercises,  but  to  pro-sadential  dispensations.  It  is 
not  a  little  curious  tbat  while  Cocceius,  in  his  Calvinistic  zeal,  uses  this 
verse  as  an  argument  against  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  free-will,  Cahdn 
himself  had  long  before  declared  that  the  words  cannot  be  so  applied. 
"  Qui  hoc  testimonio  usi  sunt  ad  evertendum  liberum  arbitrium,  Prophetfe 
mentem  assecuti  non  sunt.  Verum  quidem  est  Deum  solum  bene  agere  in 
nobis,  et  quicquid  recte  iustituunt  homines  esse  ex  illius  Spiritu  ;  sed  hie 
simpliciter  docet  Propheta  omnia  bona  quibus  fruimur  ex  Dei  manu  adeptos 
esse  :  unde  colligit  nullum  fore  beneficentiae  finem  donee  plena  felicitas 
accedat."  This  brief  extract  is  at  once  an  illustration  of  the  great  Reformer's 
sound  and  independent  judgment,  and  of  the  skill  with  which  he  can  present 
the  exact  and  full  sense  of  a  passage  in  a  few  words. 

13.  Jehovah,  our  God,  {other)  lords  beside  thee  have  ruled  us ;  (but  hence- 
forth) thee,  thy  name,  only  will  ive  celebrate.  In  this  verse  again  there  is 
great  diversity  as  to  the  explanation  of  the  tenses.  Clericus  renders  both 
the  verbs  as  preterites,  and  understands  the  verse  as  saying,  that  even 
when  the  Jews  were  under  foreign  oppression,  they  maintained  their  allegiance 
to  Jehovah.  Ewald  gives  the  same  sense,  but  in  reference  to  the  present 
fidelity  of  Israel  under  present  oppression.  Gesenius,  more  correctly,  dis- 
tinguishes between  the  verbs  as  preterite  and  present.  There  is  no  good 
gi'ound,  however,  for  departing  from  the  strict  sense  of  the  forms  as  pre- 
terite and  future,  which  are  faithfully  expressed  in  all  the  English  versions. 
The  usual  construction  of  the  last  clause  imderstands  1^  as  meaning  through 
thee,  i.  e.  through  thy  favour,  by  thy  help,  we  are  enabled  now  to  praise  thy 
name.  But  Ewald,  Barnes,  and  Henderson  regard  the  pronoun  as  in 
apposition  with  thy  name,  and  the  whole  clause  as  describing  only  the  object 
of  their  worship,  not  the  means  by  which  they  were  enabled  to  render  it. 
The  construction  of  l^  is  in  that  case  somewhat  singular,  but  may  have 
been  the  only  one  by  which  the  double  object  of  the  verb  could  be  distinctly 
expressed  without  the  repetition  of  the  verb  itself.  As  to  the  lords  who  are 
mentioned  in  the  first  clause,  there  are  two  opinions.  One  is,  that  they  are 
the  Chaldees  or  Babylonians,  under  whom  the  Jews  had  been  in  bondage. 
This  is  now  the  current  explanation.  The  other  is,  that  they  are  the  false 
gods  or  idols,  whom  the  Jews  had  served  before  the  exile.  Against  the  for- 
mer, and  in  favour  of  the  latter  supposition  it  may  be  suggested,  first,  that 


42G  ISAIAII  XXVI.  [Ver.  14. 

the  Babj'lonian  bondage  did  not  hinder  the  Jews  from  mentioning  Jehovah's 
name  or  praising  him  ;  secondly,  that  the  whole  verse  looks  like  a  confession 
of  their  own  fault  and  a  promise  of  amendment,  rather  than  a  reminiscence 
of  their  sufl'erings;  and,  thirdly,  that  there  seems  to  be  an  obvious  compari- 
son between  the  worship  of  Jehovah  as  our  God,  with  some  other  worship 
and  some  other  deity.  At  the  same  time  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  ideas 
of  religious  and  political  allegiance  and  apostasy,  or  of  heatlien  rulers,  and 
of  idol  gods,  were  not  so  carefully  distinguished  by  the  ancient  Jews  as  by 
ourselves,  and  it  is  therefore  not  impossible  that  both  the  kinds  of  servitude 
referred  to  may  be  here  included,  yet  in  such  a  manner  that  the  spiritual 
one  must  be  considered  as  the  prominent  idea,  and  the  only  one,  if  either 
must  be  fixed  upon  to  the  conclusion  of  the  other.  An  additional  argument, 
in  favom"  of  the  reference  of  this  verse  to  spiritual  rulers,  is  its  exact  coiTes- 
pondence  with  the  singular  fact  in  Jewish  history,  that  since  the  Babylonish 
exile  they  have  never  even  been  suspected  of  idolatry.  That  such  a  circum- 
stance should  be  adverted  to  in  this  commemorative  poem,  is  so  natural 
that  its  omission  would  be  almost  unaccountable. 

14.  Dead,  they  shall  not  live  :  ghosts,  they  shcdl  not  rise  :  therefore  thou 
hast  visited  and  destroyed  them,  and  mode  all  memory  to  perish  luith  respect 
to  them.  Those  whom  we  lately  served  are  now  no  more ;  thou  hast  de- 
stroyed them  and  consigned  them  to  oblivion,  for  the  very  purpose  of 
securing  our  freedom  and  devotion  to  thy  service.  Most  of  the  recent 
writers  follow  Ciericus  in  referring  this  verse  to  the  Babylonians  exclusively, 
Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit  apply  it  to  the  forefathers  of  the  supposed 
speakers,  who  had  perished  on  account  of  their  idolatry.  It  seems  best, 
however,  to  refer  it  to  the  strange  lords  of  the  foregoing  verse,  i.  e.  the  idols 
themselves,  but  with  some  allusion,  as  in  that  case,  to  the  idolatrous  op- 
pressors of  the  Jews.  The  reasorx  for  preferring  this  interpretation  to  that 
of  Hitzig  is,  that  the  latter  introduces  a  new  subject  which  had  not  been 
previousl}'  mentioned.  The  first  clause  may  indeed  be  rendered  as  a  general 
proposition,  the  dead  live  not,  &c. ;  but  this  still  leaves  the  transition  an 
abrupt  one,  and  the  allusion  to  the  departed  Israelites  obscure.  The  dis- 
junctive accents  which  accompany  DTIO  and  D''ND"l  also  show  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  Masoretic  tradition,  these  words  are  not  the  direct  subject  of  the 
verb,  but  in  apposition  with  it.  The  sense  is  correctly  given  in  the  English 
Version,  they  are  dead,  they  shall  not  live  ;  they  are  deceased,  they  shall  nut 
rise.  An  attempt,  however,  has  been  made  above  to  imitate  more  closely 
the  concise  and  compact  form  of  the  original.  For  the  meaning  of  D^ND^, 
vide  supra,  chap,  xiv,  9.  It  is  here  a  poetical  equivalent  to  DTID,  and  may 
be  variously  rendered,  shades,  shadows,  spirits,  or  the  like.  The  common 
version  (deceased)  leaves  too  entirely  out  of  view  the  figurative  character  of 
the  expression.  Giants,  on  the  contrary,  is  too  strong,  and  could  only  be 
employed  in  this  connection  in  the  sense  of  gigantic  shadt's  or  shadows. 
The  Targum  strangely  makes  these  terms  denote  the  worshippers  of  dead 
men  and  giants,  i.  e.  probably  of  heroes.  The  Septuagint  gives  a  curious 
turn  to  the  sentence  by  reading  D^XQI  2^^^lisicians  {jar^oi  ou  ur^  dvaaTyjaovai). 
Gesenius  needlessly  attaches  to  P?  the  rare  and  dubious  sense  because, 
which  Ewald  regards  as  a  fictitious  one,  deduced  from  a  superficial  view  of 
certain  passages,  in  which  the  meaning  there/ore  seems  at  first  sight  inappro- 
priate. The  other  sense  is  certainly  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity. 
In  this  case  the  apparent  necessity  is  done  away  bj'  simply  observing,  that 
therefore  may  be  used  to  introduce,  not  only  the  cause,  but  the  design  of 
an  action.     Though  the  words  cannot  mean,  thou  hast  destroyed  them  he- 


Vek.  15,  16.]  ISAIAH  XXVI.  427 

cause  they  are  dead  and  powerless,  they  may  naturally  mean,  thou  hast 
destroyed  them  that  tliey  migJit  be  dead  and  powerless.  The  same  two 
meaning  ai-e  attached  to  the  English  phrase^r  this  reason,  which  may  either 
denote  cause  or  purpose.  The  meaning  of  the  verse,  as  connected  with  the 
one  before  it  is,  that  the  strange  lords  who  had  ruled  them  should  not  only 
cease  to  do  so,  but,  so  far  as  they  were  concerned,  should  cease  to  exist  or 
be  remembered. 

15.   Thou  hast  added  to  the  nation,  0  Jehovah,  thou  hast  added  to  the 
nation  ;  thou  hast  glorijied  thyself;  thou  hast  put  far  off  all  the  ends  of 
the  land.     By  this  deliverance  of  thy  people  from  the  service  both  of  idols 
and  idolaters,  thou  hast  added  a  great  number  to  the  remnant  who  were 
left  in  the  Holy  Land,  so  that  larger  territories  will  be  needed  for  their  occu- 
pation ;  and  in  doing  all  this,  thou  hast  made  an  exhibition  of  thy  power, 
justice,  truth,  and  goodness.     Thus  understood,  the  whole  verse  is  a  grate- 
ful acknowledgement  of  what  God  had  done  for  his  suifering  people.    Some, 
on  the  contrary,  have  understood  it  as  relating  wholly  to  his  previous  judg- 
ments.    ThusDe  Dieu,  with  his  usual  ingennity  and  love  of  paradox,  con- 
founds the  idea  of  adding  to  the  nation  with  that  of  gathering  a  person  to 
his  i^eople  or  his  fathers,   a  common  idiomatic  periphrasis  for  death.     This 
is  founded  on  the  etymological  affinity  of  ^D''  and  ^IDN*.   To  match  this  in  the 
other  clause,  he  makes  pi<  ^1^*P  mean  the  extremities  of  the  land,  i.  e.  its 
highest  extremities  or  chief  men,  whom  Nebuchadnezzar  carried  into  exile.    A 
more  common  explanation  of  the  verse  is  that  which  supposes  the  last  clause 
to  describe  the  exile,  and  the  fu-st  the  restoration.     To  remove  the  Uffrsgov 
T^oTi^ov  which  thus  arises,  it  becomes  necessary  to  make  npm  a  pluperfect, 
as  in  the  English  Version,  which  moreover   supplies  a  pronoun  as  the 
object  of  the  verb,  and  a  preposition  before  ends.     A  much  simpler  con- 
struction of  the   last  clause  is  the   one  nov/  commonly  adopted,    which 
supposes  no  ellipsis,  makes  p&5  ''IVp  itself  the  object  of  the  verb,   and 
identical  in  meaning  with  the  Latin /z?ies  terra  in  the  sense  of  boundaries, 
the  removing  of  which  farther  off  denotes  of  course  territorial  enlargement. 
Junius  supplies  life  after  added  in  the  first  clause ;  J.  D.  MichaeUs  and 
others  supply  gifts  or  favours  ;  but  the  obvious  meaning  seems  to  be  that 
God  had  added  to  the  number  of  the  people,  not  by  an  aggregate  increase 
of  the  whole  nation,  but  by  the  reunion  of  its  separated  parts,  in  the  restora- 
tion of  the  exiles  from  Babylon.      The  word  ''1J,  as  Ivnobel  well  observes, 
may  here  denote  the  remnant  left  in  Jndah,  to  which  the  analogous  term  Dy 
is  repeatedly  appUed  by  Jeremiah.     The  enlargement  of  the  boundaries  may 
either  be  explained  as  a  poetical  description  of  the  actual  increase  and  ex- 
pected gi-owthof  the  nation  (chap.  xlix.  19),  or  Kterally  understood  as  referring 
to  the  iact,  that  after  the  return  from  exile  the  Jews  were  no  longer  restricted 
to  their  own  proper  territory,  but  extended  themselves  more  or  less  over  the 
whole  country.     Knobel  gives  fl7??^  the  specific  meaning,  thou  hast  made 
thyself  great,  *.  e.  the  king  of  a  great  nation  ;  but  the  wider  and  more  usual 
sense  is  much  to  be  preferred.     The  translation  of  the  verb  as  a  reflexive, 
rather  than  a  simple  passive,  greatly  adds  to  the  strength  of  the  expression. 
16.  Jehovah,    in    distress    they    visited    thee;    they  uttered    a    whisper; 
thy  chastisement  was  on  them.     It  was  not  merely  after  their  deliverance 
that  they  turned  from  idols  unto  God.     Their  deliverance  itself  was  owing 
to  their  humble  prayers.      Visit  here  used  m  the  unusual  but  natural  sense 
of  seeking  God  in  supplication,     Hitzig  and  Heudewerk  prefer  the  second- 
ary sense  of  ^TV,  incantation  (Beschworung)  ;  but  the  primary  meaning  is 
not  only  admissible,  but  beautifully  expressive  of  submissive  humble  prayer, 


428  ISAIAH  XXVI.  [Ver.  17. 

like  that  of  Hannah  when  she  spake  in  her  heart  and  only  her  lips  moved,  but 
her  voice  uas  nut  heard,  although,  as  she  said  herself,  she  poured  out  her 
sold  he/ore  God,  which  is  the  exact  sense  of  ]'>P^  in  this  place.  A  like 
expression  is  applied  to  prayer  in  the  title  of  Psalm  cii,  Barnes  explains 
KTI?  here  to  mean  a  sighing,  a  calling  fur  help,  as  if  the  t^YO  things 
were  identical,  whereas  the  idea  of  a  call  or  cry  is  at  variance  ^vith 
the  figurative  import  of  the  language.  This  is  one  of  the  few  cases  in 
which  the  plural  of  the  preterite  takes  a  paragogic  nun.  "Whether  it  was 
meant  to  be  intensive,  as  Henderson  supposes,  or  to  affect  the  sense  in 
any  way,  may  be  doubted.  Ivnobel  supplies  a  preposition  before  TD^^,  and 
says  that  the  Prophet  would  have  written  DIDia,  but  for  the  necessity  of 
adding  the  suffix  of  the  second  person,  which  required  that  of  the  third  to  be 
separately  written  with  a  preposition.  It  is  simpler,  however,  to  supply  the 
substantive  verb  and  take  the  words  as  a  short  independent  clause.  It  is 
implied,  though  not  expressed,  that  their  prayer  was  humble  and  submissive 
because  they  felt  that  what  they  suffered  was  a  chastisement  from  God. 
Ewald,  who  usually  makes  an  advance  upon  his  predecessors,  in  the  way  of 
simple  and  exact  translation,  is  here  misled  by  his  fondness  for  critical 
emendation,  and  proposes  to  read  ^^i  as  a  verb,  and  ]'\?'i  as  a  noun  derived 
from  P-IV  to  press.  (In)  distresa  it  teas  lisped  {or  ivhispered)  Inj  them  (lo'?) 
TJig  cluisiisemejit !  The  construction  thus  obtained  is  as  harsh  and  infeli- 
citous as  the  correction  of  the  text  is  arbitrary. 

17.  Js  uhen  a  pregnant  (wonuin)  draws  near  to  the  birth,  she  writhes, 
she  cries  out  in  her  pongs,  so  hare  we  been,  from  thy  presence,  0  Jehovah  ! 
Before  we  thus  cast  ourselves  upon  tliy  mercy  in  submissive  prayer,  we 
tried  to  deliver  ourselves,  but  only  to  the  aggravation  of  our  sufferings. 
The  comparison  here  used  is  not  intended  simply  to  denote  extreme  pain, 
as  in  many  other  cases,  but  as  the  next  verse  clearly  shews,  the  pain 
arising  from  ineffectual  efforts  to  relieve  themselves,  i^^^,  like  the  corres- 
ponding English  as,  is  properly  a  particle  of  comparison,  but  constantly 
appHed  to  time,  as  a  synon^-me  of  ichen.  The  full  force  of  the  term  may 
be  best  expressed  in  this  case  by  combining  the  two  English  words.  The 
future  is  here  used  to  denote  a  general  fact  which  not  only  docs,  but  will 
occur.  Hendewerk  translates  the  last  verb  as  a  present ;  but  it  seems 
clear  that  the  Prophet  is  reverting  to  the  state  of  things  before  the  deliver- 
ance which  had  just  been  acknowledged.  Knobel,  in  accordance  with  his 
general  hypothesis  as  to  the  date  and  subject  of  the  prophecy,  applies  this 
verse  to  the  condition  of  the  Jews  who  were  left  behind  in  Palestine,  but 
the  great  majority  of  writers,  much  more  probably,  to  that  of  the  exiles. 
There  are  three  explanations  of  the  phrase  T?.^^.  Clericus  and  Hitzig 
take  it  in  its  strictest  sense  as  meaning  /ro7n  thy  presence,  i.  e.  cast  out  or 
removed  far  fi-om  it.  Knobel,  on  the  contrary,  excludes  the  proper  local 
sense  of  the  expression  and  translates  it  on  account  of  thee,  i.  e.  because  of 
thine  anger.  Gesenius  and  Ewald  give  the  intermediate  sense  before  thee, 
w  thy  presence.  Even  in  the  cases  cited  by  Knobel,  the  evils  experienced 
are  described  as  coming  from  the  presence  "of  Jehovah.  Some  of  the  older 
writers  even  give  D'JS  itself  the  sense  of  anger,  which  is  wholly  unnecessary 
and  unauthorised.  The  only  way  in  which  the  question  can  be  settled  is 
by  the  application  of  the  general  principle,  that  where  a  choice  of  meaning 
is  presented,  that  is  entitled  to  the  preference  which  adheres  most  closely 
to  the  strict  sense  of  the  terms.  On  this  gi'ound  the  translation  fro'n 
thy  jyresence  is  to  be  preferred  ;  but   whether   with  the  accessory  idea  of 


Yer.  18.]  ISAIAH  XXVI.  429 

removal,  alienation,  or  with  that  of  infliction,  is  a  question  not  determined 
by  the  phrase  itself,  but  either  left  uncertain  or  to  be  decided  by  the  context. 
18.  We  xcere  in  travail,  ue  were  in  pain,  as  it  were  ive  brotiffJit  forth 
tcind.  Deliverances  ive  could  not  make  the  land,  nor  would  the  inhabitants 
of  the  world  fall.  The  figure  introduced^  in  the  preceding  verse  is  here 
carried  out  and  applied.  Ewald  makes  i03  mean  as  if,  but  neither  this 
nor  as  it  were  is  fully  justified  by  usage.  Gesenius  renders  it  when  as  in 
ver.  17,  but  this  requires  a  verb  to  be  supplied,  when  we  brought  forth  (it 
was)  wind.  The  general  sense  is  evident.  The  next  clause  admits  of 
several  different  constructions.  The  simplest  supplies  a  preposition  before 
X'^'^,  in  or  fur  the  land.  The  one  now  commonly  adopted  is,  we  could  not 
make  the  land  safetij,  i.  e.  could  not  make  it  safe  or  save  it.  The  snme 
writers  generally  make  ^t^'yJ  the  passive  participle,  in  which  case  it  must 
agree,  either  with  |*"1X  which  is  usually  feminine,  or  with  myili'''  which  is 
both  feminine  and  plural.  The  possibility  of  such  construciious  does  not 
warrant  them,  much  less  require  them,  when  as  here  the  obvious  one  is 

perfectly  appropriate  and  in  strict  agreement  with  the  parallel  y?^\  The 
objection  urged  to  making  n*J'J?3  a  future  is  that  the  people  could  not  save 
the  country,  which  is  the  very  thing  the  future  was  intended  to  assert.  The 
future  form  of  the  verb  has  respect  to  the  period  described.  As  the  people 
then  might  have  said,  ?re  shall  not  save  the  land,  so  the  same  expression  is 
here  put  into  theh  mouths  retrospectively.  The  best  equivalent  in  English 
is  the  potential  or  subjunctive  form,  we  could  not.  Gesenius  and  the  other 
recent  German  writers  understand  this  as  a  description  of  the  Holy  Land 
after  the  return  from  exile.  We  cannot  save  the  country,  and  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  land  will  not  be  born,  (1?3'')  {.  e.  it  is  still  very  thinly  peopled. 
This  is  far  from  being  an  obvious  or  natural  interpretation.  The  foregoing 
context,  as  we  have  seen,  relates  to  the  period  of  captivity  itself.  The 
meaning  given  to  ^£^,  though  sustained  by  analogies  in  other  languages, 
derives  no  countenance  from  Hebrew  usage.  Nor  is  it  probable  that  the 
figure  of  parturition  would  be  here  resumed,  after  it  had  been  dropped  in 
the  preceding  member  of  the  sentence.  The  way  in  which  the  metaphors 
of  this  verse  have  been  treated  by  some  commentators  furnishes  an  instance 
of  the  perversion  and  abuse  of  archaeological  illustration.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
imagined  that  he  had  discovered  an  allusion  to  a  certain  medical  pheno- 
menon of  very  rare  occurrence.  This  suggestion  is  eagerly  adopted  by 
Gesenius,  who,  not  content  with  naming  it  in  his  text,  pursues  tbe  subject 
with  great  zest  in  a  note,  and  appears  to  have  called  in  the  assistance  of 
his  colleague,  the  celebrated  medical  professor  Sprengel.  From  one  or 
the  other  of  these  soui'ces  the  details  are  copied  by  several  later  waiters, 
one  of  whom,  lest  the  reader's  curiosity  should  not  be  sated,  says  that  the 
whole  may  be  seen  fully  described  in  the  books  on  obstetrics.  It  is  a 
curious  fact  that  some,  who  are  often  reluctant  to  recognise  New  Testament 
doctrines  in  the  prophecies,  can  find  there  allusions  to  the  most  extraordi- 
nary medical  phenomena.  The  best  comment  upon  this  obstetrical  eluci- 
dation is  contained  in  Hitzig's  caustic  observation,  that  by  parity  of 
reasoning  the  allusion  in  chap,  xxxiii.  11  is  to  an  actual  bringing  forth 
of  straw  (eine  wirkhche  Strohgeburt).  Knobel  has  also  pointed  out,  what 
any  reader  might  discover  for  himself,  that  wind  is  here  used,  as  in  chap, 
xli.  29  ;  Hosea  xii.  2,  as  a  common  metaphor  for  failure,  disappointment. 
'??^  is  variously  explained  according  to  the  sense  put  upon  the  whole 
verse.      Those  who  refer  it  to  the  period  after  the  return   from  exile 


•i30  ISAIAH  XXYI.  [Yer.  19. 

regard  "?3n  as  equivalent  to  pX.  Those  who  suppose  the  exile  itself  to 
be  the  time  in  question,  understand  by  73n  the  Babylonian  empire  as  in 
chap.  xiii.  11. 

19.  Thti  dead  shall  lire,  my  corpses  shall  arise ;  (airake  aud  siiuf  ye  that 
dwell  in  the  dust !)  for  the  dew  of  herbs  is  thy  dew,  and  [on)  the  earth 
(o;()  the  dead,  thou  icilt  cause  it  to  fall.  This  verse  is  in  the  strongest 
contrast  with  the  one  before  it.  To  the  ineffectual  efforts  of  the  people  to 
save  themselves,  he  now  opposes  their  actual  deliverance  by  God.  They 
shall  rise  because  they  are  thy  dead,  /.  e.  thy  dead  people.  The  construc- 
tion of  '•0733  with  |1?D1p''  is  not  a  mere  grammatical  anomaly.  The  noun 
and  suffix  are  singular,  because  the  Avords  are  those  of  Israel  as  a  body. 
The  verb  is  plural,  because  the  corpse  of  Israel  included  in  reality  a  multi- 
tude of  corpses.  The  explanation  of  the  suffix  as  a  parogogic  syllable  is 
contrary  to  usage,  which  restricts  paragoge  to  the  construct  form.  Kimchi 
supplies  a  preposition  {with  my  dead  body)  which  construction  is  adopted 
in  the  English  version  and  in  several  others,  but  is  now  commonly  aban- 
doned as  incongi'uous  and  wholly  arbitrary'.  Neither  the  Prophet,  nor  the 
house  of  Israel,  in  w-hose  name  he  is  speaking,  could  refer  to  their  own 
body  as  distinct  from  the  bodies  of  Jehovah's  dead  ones.  Aioal-e,  &c.  is 
a  joyful  apostrophe  to  the  dead,  after  which  the  address  to  Jehovah  is 
resumed.  There  are  two  interpretations  of  Tn\^,  both  ancient,  and  sup- 
ported by  high  modern  authorities.  The  first  gives  the  word  the  usual 
sense  of  "11^<  liyht ;  ihe  other  that  of  p^cm^s,  which  it  has  in  2  Kings, 
iv.  39.  The  first  is  found  in  the  Targum,  Vulgate,  and  Peshito,  and  is 
approved  by  Grotius,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  Gesenius  in  his  Commentary. 
The  other  is  given  by  Kimchi,  Clericus,  Vitringa,  Rosenmiiller,  Maurer, 
Hitzig,  and  Gesenius  in  his  Lexicon.  To  the  former  it  may  be  objected, 
that  it  leaves  the  plural  form  unexplained,  that  it  arbitrarily  makes  light 
mean  life,  and  that  it  departs  from  the  acknowledged  meaning  of  ril'lN  in 
the  only  other  place  where  it  occurs.  The  second  interpretation,  on  the 
other  hand,  assumes  but  one  sense  of  the  word,  allows  the  plural  form 
its  proper  force,  aud  supposes  an  obvious  and  natural  allusion  to  the  in- 
fluence of  dew  upon  the  growth  of  plants.  In  either  case  the  reference 
to  the  dew  is  intended  to  illustrate  the  vivifying  power  of  God.  Gese- 
nius and  Ewald  both  explain  the  verbs  as  optatives  and  the  verse  as  ex- 
pressive of  a  wish  that  God  would  raise  the  dead  and  thus  rcpeople  the 
now  empty  countrs'.  This  construction,  though  admissible  in  case  of  neces- 
sity, has  nothing  to  entitle  it  to  preference,  when  the  strict  interpretation 
yields  a  perfectlj'  good  seuse.  The  obvious  meaning  of  the  words  is  an 
expression  of  strong  confidence  and  hope,  or  rather  of  prophetic  foresight, 
that  God  will  raise  the  dead,  that  his  life-giving  influence  will  be  exerted. 
The  use  of  ^''SR  here  is  certainly  obscure.  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  the  other 
late  interpreters,  suppose  it  to  denote  the  act  of  bearing,  bringing  forth,  as 
the  Kal  in  ver.  18  means,  according  to  the  same  writers,  to  be  born.  But 
if  it  there  seems  unnatural  to  suppose  a  resumption  of  that  figure,  it  is 
much  more  so  here,  where  another  figui-e,  that  of  vegetation,  goes  before. 
The  mere  rhetorical  objection  to  mixed  metaphors,  as  we  have  seen  in 
other  cases,  ought  to  weigh  but  little  where  the  sense  is  clear  ;  but  in 
determining  a  doubtful  sense,  we  are  rather  to  presume  that  a  figure  once 
begun  is  continued,  than  that  it  is  suddenly  changed  for  another.  An  ad- 
ditional objection  to  this  exposition  is  the  incongruity  of  making  the  earth 
bring  forth  the  dead,  and  thus  putting  the  two  extremes  of  life  into  juxta- 


Ver.  19.J  ISAIAH  XXVL  431 

position.     To  avoid  this  incongruity,  Gesenius  and  Ewald  are  obliged  to 

give  VqJ,  both  here  and  in  ver.  v.  18,  not  only  the  precarious  sense  of 
hearing  and  of  heinfj  born,  but  the  arbitrary  and  specific  one  of  bearing  again 

and  being  born  again.     Some  of  the  older  writers  make  ^''Sri  the  second 
person  (which  agrees  well  with  the  previous  address  to  God)  and  understand 
the  words  to  mean  thou  ivilt  canse  the  giants  to  fall  to  the  earth.     But  the 
combination  of  D''XD"l  with  DTIQ  in  ver.  14,  and  the  repetition  of  the  latter 
here,  decides  the  meaning  of  the  former,  as  denoting  the  deceased,  the 
dead.     Retaining  the  construction  of  ^''Sn  as  a  second  person,  and  sup- 
posing the  allusion  to  the  influence  of  dew  upon  the  growth  of  plants  to  be 
continued,  we  may  render  the  words  thus  :   {upon)   the  earth,  (upon)   the 
dead  thou  ivilt  cause  it  to  fall.     As  if  he  had  said,  thou  hast  a  life-giving 
influence  and  thou  wilt  exert  it ;  as  thy  dew  makes  plants  to  grow,  so 
shall  it  make  these  dead  to  live.       That  the  ellipsis  of  the  preposition 
before  l'"l^5  and  CNDt,  although  not  without  analogy,  is  somewhat  harsh, 
must  be  admitted,  and  the  only  -sdew  with  which  this  construction  is  pro- 
posed is,  that  its  difficulties  and  advantages  may  be  compared  with  those 
of  the  translation  given  by  Gesenius  and  Ewald,  the  earth  brings  forth  the 
dead.   All  these  interpretations  coincide  in  applying  the  verse  to  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  and  the  question  now  arises,  what  refiurrectiou  is  referred 
to  ?     All  the  answers  to  this  question  may  be  readily  reduced  to   three. 
The  first  is,  that  the  Prophet  means  the  general  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
or  according  to  an  old  rabbinical  tradition,  the   exclusive   resurrection  of 
the  righteous  at  the  last  day.     The  second  is,  that  he  refers  to  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  Jews  already  dead,  not  as  an  actual  or  possible  event,  but  as  a 
passionate  expression  of  desu-e  that  the  depopulated  land  might  be  replen- 
ished with  inhabitants.     The  third  is,  that  he  represents  the  restoration  of 
the  exiles  and  of  the  theocracy  under  the  figure  of  a  resurrection,  as  Paul 
says  the  restoration  of  Israel  to  God's  favour  will  be  life  from  the  dead. 
The  obvious  objection  to  the  first  of  these  opinions  is,  that  a  prediction  of 
the  fijial  resm-rection  is  as  much  out  of  place  in  this  connection  as  the  sams 
expectation  seemed  to  Martha  as  a  source  of  comfort  for  the  loss  of  Lazarus. 
But  as  our  Saviour,  when  he  said  to  her,  thy  brother  shall  rise  again,  de- 
signed to  console  her  by  the  promise  of  an  earlier  and  special  resurrection, 
so  in  this  case  what  was  needed  for  the  comfort  of  God's  people  was  some- 
thing more  than  the  prospect  of  rising  at  the  day  of  judgment.     The  choice 
therefore  lies  between  the  other  two  hypotheses,  that  of  a  mere  wish  that 
the  dead  might  literally  rise  at  once,  and  that  of  a  prediction  that  they 
should  rise  soon  but  in  a  figure  {iv  'ira^ajSoXfi)  as  Paul  says  of  Isaac's  resur- 
rection from  the  dead  (Heb.  xi.  19).     The  objection  to  the  first  of  these 
interpretations  is,  that  the  optative  construction  of  the  verbs,  as  we  have 
seen  already,  is  not  the  obvious  and  natural  construction,  and  ought  not  to 
be  assumed  unless  it  yields  a  better  sense  and  one  more  appropriate  in  this 
connection.     But  so  far  is  this  from  being  the  case,  that  the  mere  expres- 
sion of  a  wish  which  could  not  be  fulfilled  would  be  a  most  unnatural  con- 
clusion of  this  national  address  to  God,  whereas  it  could  not  be   more 
suitably  wound  up,  or  in  a  manner  more  in  keeping  with  the  usage  of  the 
prophecies,  than  by  a  strong  expression  of  belief,  that  God  would  raise  his 
people  from  the  dust  of  degradation  and  oppression,  where  they  had  long 
seemed  dead  though  only  sleeping.     On  these  grounds  the  figurative  ex- 
position seems  decidedly  entitled  to  the  preference.     Upon  this  allusion  to 
a  resurrection  Gesenius  fastens  as  a  proof  that  the  prophecy  could  not  have 


432  ISAIAE  XXVI.  [Ykr.  20. 

been  written  until  after  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  had  been  borrowed 
by  the  Jews  from  Zoroaster.  To  this  it  may  be  answered,  first,  that  the 
alleged  derivation  of  the  doctrine  is  a  figment,  which  no  authoritative  writer 
on  the  history  of  opinion  would  now  venture  to  maintain  ;  secondly,  that 
the  mention  of  a  figurative  resurrection,  or  the  expression  of  a  wish  that  a 
literal  one  would  take  place,  has  no  more  to  do  with  the  doctrinal  belief  of 
the  wTiter,  than  any  other  lively  figure  or  expression  of  strong  feeling  ; 
thirdly,  that  if  a  knowledge  and  belief  of  the  doctrine  of  a  general  resurrec- 
tion is  implied  in  these  expressions,  the  text,  instead  of  being  klassisch  as 
a  proof  of  later  Jewish  opinions,  is  Idassisch  as  a  proof  that  the  doctrine 
was  known  to  Isaiah,  if  not  to  his  contemporaries.  If  Gesenius,  believing 
this  prediction  to  belong  to  the  period  of  the  exile,  is  entitled  to  adduce  it 
as  a  proof  of  what  opinions  were  then  current,  those  who  believe  it  to  be 
genuine  are  equally  entitled  to  adduce  it  as  a  proof  of  what  was  current  in 
the  days  of  Isaiah.  It  is  easy  to  affirm  that  the  prophecy  is  known  on 
other  grounds  to  be  of  later  date  ;  but  it  is  just  as  easy  to  affirm  that  the 
alleged  grounds  are  sophistical  and  inconclusive.  Holding  this  to  be  the 
truth,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  the  text  either  proves  nothing  as  to  a 
general  resurrection  of  the  dead,  or  that  it  proves  the  belief  of  such  a  resur- 
rection to  be  at  least  as  old  as  the  prophet  Isaiah. 

20.  Go,  v>y  people,  enter  into  thy  chambers,  ami  shut  thy  doors  after  thee, 
hide  thyself  Jor  a  little  moment,  till  the  torath  he  past.  Having  wound  up 
the  expectations  of  the  people  to  a  full  belief  of  future  restoration  from  their 
state  of  civil  and  religious  death,  the  Prophet  by  an  exquisite  transition 
intimates,  that  this  event  is  not  yet  immediately  at  hand,  that  this  relief 
from  the  effects  of  God's  displeasure  with  his  people  must  be  preceded  by 
the  experience  of  the  displeasure  itself,  that  it  is  still  a  time  of  indignation, 
and  that  till  this  is  elapsed  the  promise  cannot  be  fulfilled.  This  painful 
postponement  of  the  promised  resurrection  could  not  be  more  tenderlj'  or 
beautifully  intimated  than  in  this  fine  apostrophe.  The  inferences  drawn 
by  certain  German  writers,  as  to  the  date  of  the  composition,  can  have  no 
effect  on  those  who  believe  that  Isaiah  was  a  prophet,  not  in  the  sense  of  a 
quidnunc  or  a  ballad- singer,  but  in  that  of  an  inspu*ed  revealer  of  futurity. 
The  similar  conclusion  di'awn  by  luiobel  from  the  form  ''^n  is  equally 
frivolous,  it  being  commonly  agi'eed  at  present  that  what  are  called  Aramaean 
forms  may  just  as  well  be  archaisms  as  neologisms,  since  they  may  have 
arisen,  not  from  later  intercourse  with  neighbouring  nations,  but  from  an 
original  identity  of  language.  Gesenius  and  others  understand  this  verse 
as  an  exhortation  to  the  Jews  in  Babylon  to  keep  out  of  harm's  way  during 
the  storming  of  the  city.  A  more  prosaic  close  of  a  poetical  context  could 
not  be  imagined.  Those  who  refer  ver.  19  to  the  general  resurrection  un- 
derstand the  verse  before  us  as  an  intimation  that  they  must  rest  in  the 
grave  until  the  time  is  come.  Such  an  allusion  is  of  course  admissible  on 
the  supposition  of  a  figurative  resurrection.  It  is  more  natural,  however, 
to  suppose  that  the  people  of  God  are  here  addressed  as  such,  and  warned 
to  hide  themselves  until  God's  indignation  against  them  is  past.  On  this 
specific  usage  of  the  word  DyT,  vide  supra,  chap.  x.  5.  On  the  idiomatic 
usage  of  the  verbs  "^^  and  ^^3,  vide  supra,  chap.  xxii.  15.  The  textual 
variation  yT\1>l  and  in?*l  is  of  no  exegetical  importance.  "11^3  strictly 
means  tcithout  thee  or  outside  of  thee,  implying  that  the  person  is  shut  in. 
It  first  occurs  in  Gen.  vii.  IG,  where  it  is  said  that  God  shut  Noah  in  the 
ark.  Ivnobel  explains  VJI  t:yiOD  as  meaning  like  the  siiHillncas  of  a  moment. 
The  3  is  a  particle  of  time,  equivalent,  or  nearly  so,  to  our  about.     The 


Vkr.  21.]  ISAIAH  XXVII.  433 

English  Version  {as  it  were)  is  therefore  incorrect.  The  period  of  suffering 
is  described  as  very  small  in  comparison  with  what  had  gone  before  and 
what  should  follow  it,  as  Paul  says  (Rom.  viii.  18),  that  the  sufferings  of 
this  present  time  are  not  icorthi/  to  he  compared  with  the  glory  ivhich  shall  be 
revealed  in  us. 

21.  For  behold,  Jehovah  [is]  coming  out  of  his  place,  to  visit  the  iniquity 
of  the  inhabitant  of  the  earth  upon  him,  and  the  earth  shall  disclose  her  blood, 
and  shall  no  more  cover  her  slain.  This  is  a  reason  both  for  expecting 
ultimate  deliverance  and  for  patiently  awaiting  it.  The  reason  is  that  God 
has  a  work  of  chastisement  to  finish,  first  upon  his  own  people,  and  then 
upon  their  enemies.  During  the  former  process,  let  the  faithful  hide  them- 
selves until  the  wrath  be  past.  When  the  other  begins,  let  them  lift  up 
their  heads,  for  their  redemption  draweth  nigh.  This  large  interpretation 
of  the  verse  is  altogether  natural  and  more  satisfactory  than  those  which 
restrict  it  either  to  the  judgments  upon  Israel  or  to  those  upon  Babylon. 
On  the  latter,  the  eye  of  the  Prophet  of  course  chiefly  rests,  especially  at 
last,  so  that  the  closing  words  may  be  applied  almost  exclusively  to  the 
retribution  which  awaited  the  Chaldean  for  the  slaughter  of  God's  people. 
On  the  idiomatic  usage  of  the  plural  Q''^"l  where  the  reference  is  to  murder, 
vide  supra,  chap.  i.  15.  Rosenmiiller  and  Hitzig  understand  the  last  clause 
as  a  prediction  that  the  dead  should  actually  come  out  of  the  graves,  Ivnobel 
as  a  poetical  anticipation  of  the  same  event.  But  it  seems  far  more  natural 
to  understand  the  clause,  with  Gesenius  and  Umbreit,  as  a  simple  variation 
of  the  one  before  it.  The  blood,  which  the  earth  had  long  since  drunk  in, 
should  as  it  were  be  vomited  up,  and  the  bodies  of  the  murdered,  which 
bad  long  been  buried  should  be  now  disclosed  to  view.  It  agrees  best  with 
the  wider  meaning  put  upon  this  verse,  and  is  at  the  same  time  more 
poetical  to  give  pX  in  both  clauses  its  generic  sense  of  earth,  rather  than 
the  specific  one  of  land.  Instead  of  the  simple  version  slain,  Gesenius 
employs  with  good  effect  the  strong  expression  murdered  (die  Gemordeten), 
as  one  of  the  French  versions  had  done  long  before  (ses  massacres).  With- 
out laying  undue  stress  on  the  mere  rhetorical  aspect  of  the  sacred  writings, 
it  may  safely  be  afiirmed  that  at  the  bar  of  the  most  elevated  criticism,  the 
concluding  verses  of  the  chapter  now  before  us  would  at  once  be  adjudged  to 
possess  intrinsic  qualities  of  beauty  and  sublimity  (apart  from  the  accident 
of  rhythm  and  parallelism,  in  w^hich  some  writers  find  the  essence  of  all 
poetry)  sufficient  to  brand  with  the  stigma  of  absurdity  the  judgment  that 
can  set  the  passage  down  as  the  work  of  a  deteriorated  age  or  an  inferior 
writer. 

CHAPTEE  XXVII. 

This  chapter  is  an  amplification  of  the  last  verse  of  the  one  preceding, 
and  contains  a  fuller  statement  both  of  Israel's  chastisements  and  of 
Jehovah's  judgments  on  his  enemies.  The  destruction  of  the  latter  is  fore- 
told as  the  slaughter  of  a  huge  sea-monster,  and  contrasted  -with  God's  care 
of  his  own  people  even  when  afflicting  them,  vers.  1-5.  Hereafter  Israel  shall 
flourish,  and  even  in  the  meantime  his  sufterings  are  far  less  than  those  of 
his  oppressors,  vers.  6,  7.  The  former  is  visited  in  moderation,  for  a  time, 
and  with  the  happiest  effect,  vers.  8,  9.  The  latter  is  finally  and  totally 
destroyed,  vers.  10,  11.  This  shall  be  followed  by  the  restoration  of  the 
scattered  Jews,  vers.  12,  13. 

VOL.  I.  E  e 


434  ISAIAH  XXV TI.  [Ver.  1. 

1.  In  that  day  sJiall  Jehovah  visit,  icith  his  sivord,  the  hard,  the  great, 
the  strong  (stvoi'd),  upon  Leviathan  the  swift  (or  flijing)  serpent,  and  upon 
Leviathan  the  coiled  (or  croohed)  serpent,  and  shall  slay  the  dragon  tohich 
(is)  in  the  sea.  It  is  universally  agrcetl  that  Ibis  is  a  prediction  of  the 
downfall  of  some  great  oppressive  power,  but  wbetber  tbat  of  a  single  nation 
or  of  several,  has  been  much  disputed.  Clericus  supposes  two,  Vitringa 
and  many  others  three,  to  be  distinctly  mentioned.  In  favour  of  suppos- 
ing a  plm-ality  of  subjects  may  be  urged  the  distinct  enumeration  and  de- 
scription of  the  monsters  to  be  slain.  But  Iho  same  form  of  expression 
occurs  in  many  other  places  where  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  single  sub- 
ject is  intended.  To  the  hypothesis  of  three  distinct  powers  it  may  be 
objected,  that  two  of  them  would  scarcel}'  have  been  called  leviathan.  To 
the  general  hypothesis  of  more  than  one,  it  may  be  objected  that  by  parity 
of  reasoning  three  swords  arc  meant,  viz.,  a  hard  one,  a  great  one,  and  a 
strong  one.  But  even  if  three  powers  be  intended,  it  is  wholly  impossible 
to  identify  them,  as  may  bo  inferred  from  the  endless  variety  of  combina- 
tions, which  have  been  suggested  :  Egypt,  Assyria,  and  Babylonia  ;  Egypt, 
Babylonia,  and  Tyre  ;  Assyria,  Babylonia,  and  Kome  ;  Babylonia,  Media, 
Persia,  &c.,  &c.  Gill  thinks  the  three  meant  are  the  devil,  the  beast,  and 
the  false  prophet ;  Cocceius,  the  emperor,  the  pope,  and  the  devil.  What 
is  common  to  all  the  hypotheses  is,  that  the  verse  describes  a  power  or 
powers  hostile  and  oppressive  to  the  people  of  God.  The  most  probable 
opinion,  therefore,  is,  that  this  was  what  the  words  were  intended  to  con- 
vey. Or  if  a  more  specific  reference  must  be  assumed,  it  is  worthy  of 
remark  that  nearly  all  the  hA-potheses,  which  apply  the  words  to  two  or 
more  of  the  great  powers  of  the  ancient  world,  make  Babylonia  one  of  them. 
From  this  induction  we  may  safely  conclude,  that  the  leviathan  and  dragon 
of  this  verse  are  descriptive  of  a  great  oppressive  power,  with  particular 
allusion  to  the  Babylonian  empire,  a  conclusion  perfectly  consistent  with  the 
previous  allusions  to  the  fall  of  Babylon  and  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from 
exile.  Assuming  this  to  be  the  general  meaning  of  the  verSe,  that  of  its 
mere  details  becomes  either  easy  or  comparatively  unimportant.  The  word 
leviathan,  which,  from  its  etymolog}',  appears  to  mean  contorted,  coiled,  is 
sometimes  used  to  denote  particular  species  {e.g.  the  crocodile),  and  some- 
times as  a  generic  term  for  huge  aquatic  animals,  or  the  larger  kinds  of 
serpents,  in  which  sense  the  corresponding  term  psri  is  also  used.  They 
both  appear  to  be  employed  in  this  case  to  express  the  indefiuite  idea  of  a 
formidable  monster,  which  is  in  fact  the  sense  now  commonly  attached  to 
the  word  dragon.  The  second  ejiithet  prippy  means  tortuous,  either  with 
respect  to  the  motion  of  the  serpent,  or  to  its  ajipearance  when  at  rest. 
Bochart  regarded  the  'Ey/AXadog  of  the  Greek  mythology  as  a  corruption  of 
this  Hebrew  word.  The  other  epithet  n"n2  has  been  variously  explained. 
Some  of  the  ancients  confound  it  with  n''"n5,  a  bar,  and  supposes  the  serpent 
to  be  so  described  either  in  reference  to  its  length,  or  stillness,  or  straight- 
ness,  or  strength,  or  its  penetrating  power,  or  the  configuration  of  its  head. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  gives  it  the  sense  of  northern,  and  supposes  the  three  objects 
here  described  to  be  the  three  constellations  which  exhibit  the  appearance 
and  bear  the  name  of  serprtits  or  dragons.  This  explanation,  founded  on 
Job  xxiii.  IG,  does  not  materially  change  the  meaning  of  the  verse,  since 
the  constellations  are  supposed  to  be  referred  to,  as  connected  in  some  way 
with  the  fortunes  of  great  states  and  empires.  The  allusion,  however,  is  so 
far-fetched  and  pedantic,  that,  although  it  suits  the  taste  of  Michaelis  and 
Hitzig,  who  delight  in  recondite  interpretations,  it  will  scarcely  satisfy  the 


Ver.  2.]  ISAIAH  XXVII.  435 

mind  of  any  ordinary  reader.  The  only  explanation  of  0^3  which  is  fully 
justified  by  Hebrew  usage  is  that  oi fugitive  ov  fleeinrj,  which  may  either  be 
a  poetical  equivalent  iofieet,  or  descriptive  of  the  monster  as  ^  Jiying  serpent. 
Hitzig  objects  to  the  supposition  of  a  single  monster,  on  the  ground  that 
these  two  epithets, ^/yi«r/  and  coiled,  are  incompatible,  as  if  the  same  serpent 
could  not  be  described  both  in  motion  and  at  rest,  not  to  mention  that  the 
second  term,  as  Umbreit  suggests,  may  itself  be  descriptive  of  motion.  The 
omission  of  any  descriptive  epithet  with  P^ri  makes  it  probable  at  least  that 
it  is  not  a  new  item  in  the  catalogue.  There  is  no  need  of  explaining  Ci^  to 
mean  Babylonia,  as  in  chap.  xxi.  1  since  the  expression  relates  to  the  type, 
not  to  the  antitype,  and  must  be  joined  with  PiJPl  to  express  the  complex 
idea  of  a  sea-serpent.  For  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  to  visit  %ipon,  vide 
supra,  chap.  xiii.  11.  The  sword  is  a  common  emblem  for  the  instruments 
of  the  divine  vengeance.  The  explanation  of  n^J^  as  meaning  heaTy  is  not 
justified  by  usage  :  severe  or  dreadful  does  not  suit  the  context,  as  the  other 
two  epithets  denote  physical  qualities  of  a  literal  sword.  The  word  no 
doubt  means  hard-edged,  or,  as  Lowth  expresses  it,  well-tempered. 

2.  On  the  explanation  of  this  verse  depends  that  of  a  large  part  of  the 
chapter.  The  two  points  upon  which  all  turns,  are  the  meaning  of  -13^  and  the 
reference  of  the  sutfix  in  I^<.  The  modern  writers  solve  the  latter  by  sup- 
posing Q?}|  to  be  feminine  in  this  one  place,  and  when  expressions  afterwards 
occur  which  are  inapplicable  to  a  vineyard,  regard  them  as  inaccuracies 
or  perhaps  as  proofs  of  an  imcultivated  taste,  whereas  they  only  prove 
that  the  assumed  construction  is  a  false  one.  The  only  supposition  which 
will  meet  the  difiiculties,  both  of  the  syntax  and  the  exegesis,  is  the  one 
adopted  by  most  of  the  older  writers,  to  wit,  that  n'?  refers,  not  directly  to 
D!^?,  but  to  Jerusalem  or  the  daughter  of  Zion,  i.  e.  to  the  Church  or  people 
of  G-od  considered  as  his  spouse  (chap.  i.  21).  This  reference  to  a  subject 
not  expressly  mentioned  might  be  looked  upon  as  arbitrary,  but  for  the  fact 
that  the  assumption  of  it  is  attended  with  fewer  difficulties  than  the  con- 
struction which  it  supersedes,  as  will  be  seen  below.  As  to  the  other  word, 
tradition  and  authority  are  almost  unanimous  in  giving  it  the  sense  of  sing. 
Assuming  that  the  primarj"  meaning  of  the  verb  is  to  answer,  and  that  the 
derivative  strictly  denotes  responsive  singing,  Lowth,  Dathe,  Schnurrer,  and 
others,  have  converted  the  whole  context  to  the  end  of  ver.  5,  into  a  dialogue 
between  Jehovah  and  his  vineyard.  This  fantastic  aiTangement  of  the  text 
has  been  rejected  by  most  later  writers  as  artificial,  complex,  and  at  variance 
with  the  genius  and  usage  of  Hebrew  composition,  Lowth's  eloquent 
plea  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  But  the  same  interpreters,  who  have 
relieved  the  passage  from  this  factitious  burden  and  embarrassment,  continue 
for  the  most  part  to  regard  what  follows  as  a  song  though  not  a  dramatic 
dialogue,  because  the  people  are  commanded  in  ver.  2  to  sing,  and  the  song  of 
course  must  follow.  To  this  exposition,  which  is  really  a  relic  of  the  old 
dramatic  one,  there  are  several  objections.  In  the  first  place,  no  one  has 
been  able  to  determine  with  precision  where  the  song  concludes,  some 
choosing  one  place  for  its  termination,  some  another.  This  would  of  course 
prove  nothing  in  a  clear  case,  but  in  a  case  like  this  it  raises  a  presumption 
at  least  that  a  song,  of  which  the  end  cannot  be  found,  has  no  beginning. 
But  in  the  next  place,  it  is  easy  to  see  wh}^  the  end  cannot  be  easily  defined, 
to  wit,  because  there  is  nothing  in  the  next  three,  four,  or  five  verses  to  dis- 
tinguish them  as  being  any  more  a  song  than  what  precedes  and  follows, 
whether  with  respect  to  imagery,  rhythm,  or  diction.  In  the  third  place, 
the  presumption  thus  created  and  confirmed  is  corroborated  further  by  the 


436  ISAIAH  XXVII.  [Veb.  2. 

obvious  incongruity  of  making  the  song,  which  the  people  are  supposed  to 
sing,  begin  with  I  Jehovah  keep  it,  Sec.  It  is  in  vain  that  Grotius,  with  his 
usual  ingenuity,  explains  "13^  as  meaning  "  sing  in  the  name  or  person  of 
Jehovah,"  and  that  other  writers  actually  introduce  thus  saith  the  Lord 
at  the  beginning  of  the  song.  This  is  only  admitting  indirectly  that  the 
supposition  of  a  song  is  wholly  arbitrary  in  a  case  so  doubtful,  whatever  it 
might  be  if  the  mention  of  the  song  were  more  explicit.  For  in  the  fourth 
place,  there  is  this  striking  difference  between  the  case  before  us  and  those 
which  are  supposed  to  be  analogous  (<'.  //.  chaps,  v.  1,  xxvi.  1),  that  in  these 
the  verb  1"'^^'  and  its  derivative  noun  of  the  same  form  are  employed,  whereas 
here  the  verb  is  different,  and  the  noun  so7if/  does  not  appear  at  all.  Under 
these  circumstances  it  would  seem  to  be  sufficient  to  take  -ISJ^  as  a  general 
exhortation  to  sing,  without  supposing  that  the  words  of  the  song  actually 
follow,  which  is  surely  not  a  necessary  supposition.  But  in  the  fifth  place, 
out  of  fifty-six  cases  in  which  the  piel  of  '"iJj;  occurs,  there  are  only  three  in 
which  the  sense  of  siniiimj  is  conceivable,  and  of  those  three,  one  (Ps. 
Ixxxviii.  1)  is  the  enigmatical  title  of  a  Psalm,  another  (Exod.  xxxii.  18)  is  so 
dubious  that  the  one  sense  is  almost  as  appropriate  as  the  other,  and  the 
third  is  that  before  us.  It  is  true  the  concordances  and  lexicons  assume 
two  different  roots,  but  this  is  merely  to  accommodate  the  difficulties  of  these 
three  texts,  and  the  multiplication  of  roots  is  now  universally  regarded  as  at 
best  a  necessary  evil.  On  such  grounds  the  assumption  of  the  meaning 
sinrj  could  hardly  be  justified,  even  if  it  were  far  more  appropriate  to  the 
context  than  the  common  one.  But  in  the  last  place,  while  the  supposition 
of  a  song,  as  we  have  seen,  embaiTasses  the  exposition,  the  usual  meaning 
of  the  verb  HSy  is  perfectly  appropriate.  This  meaning  is  to  (ifflict,  and 
especially  to  afflict  in  an  humbling  and  degrading  manner.  This  may  seem 
to  be  utterly  at  variance  with  the  context  as  it  is  commonly  explained ;  but 
the  common  explanation  rests  on  the  supposititious  meaning  of  the  verb,  and 
cannot  therefore  be  alleged  in  favour  of  that  meaning.  On  the  usual  hypo- 
thesis, the  verse  exhorts  the  people  to  sing  to  the  vineyard  or  the  Church ;  on 
the  one  now  proposed  it  challenges  her  enemies  to  do  their  worst,  declaring 
that  God  still  protects  her.  This  explanation  of  the  verse  agi'ees  well  with 
thedistinctallusionstothe  punishment  of  Israel  in  vers.  4,7,  8, 9,  which  would 
be  comparatively  out  of  place  in  a  song  of  triumph  or  gratulation.  Against 
this  explanation  of  -133^,  and  of  the  whole  verse,  lies  the  undivided  weight 
of  tradition  and  authority ;  so  far  as  I  can  trace  the  exposition  of  the  passage, 
the  only  writer  who  adopts  the  sense  ajjiht  being  Gousset  (or  Gussetius)  in 
his  Comment.  Ebr.,  as  cited  by  Gill.  So  unanimous  a  judgment  might  be 
looked  upon  as  perfectly  decisive  of  the  question  but  for  two  considerations; 
first,  that  the  proposed  interpretation  removes  a  variety  of  difficulties,  not  by 
forsaking  usage  but  by  returning  to  it ;  and  secondly,  that  none  of  the 
interpreters  consulted  seem  to  have  adverted  to  the  facts  already  stated, 
with  respect  to  the  usage  of  nsj?.  But  besides  the  objection  from  tradition 
and  authority,  another  may  be  urged  of  a  grammatical  nature,  viz.  the  unusual 
connection  of  the  verb  with  its  object,  not  directly,  but  by  means  of  the  pre- 
position 7.  To  this  it  can  only  be  replied,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  choice 
presented  is  a  choice  of  difficulties,  and  that  those  attending  the  construction 
now  in  question  seem  to  be  less  than  those  attending  any  other ;  in  the  next 

place,  that  although  this  verb  does  not  elsewhere  take  the  proposition  ?  after 
it,  there  are  many  cases  in  which  other  active  verbs  are  separated  from  their 

objects  by  it,  the  verb  then  denoting  the  mere  action,  and  the  7  pointing  out 


Ver.  3,  4.]  ISAIAH  XXVII  437 

the  object  as  to  which,  or  with  respect  to  which,  it  is  performed ;  and  in  the 
last  place,  that  the  /  may  have  been  rendered  necessary  here  because  the 
nouns  before  the  verb  are  also  in  some  sense  its  objects.  The  latest  German 
writers,  it  is  true,  construe  I^D  Q!])?  as  an  absolute  nominative  [as  to  the  vine- 
yard of  xcine),  or  as  the  subject  of  a  verb  understood  [there  shall  he  a  vine- 
yard of  ivine),  but  these  are  mere  expedients  to  explain  the  n?,  and  must  of 
course  give  way  to  any  simpler  method  of  accomplishing  that  purpose.  As 
the  result  of  this  investigation,  we  may  now  translate  the  verse  as  follows  : 
In  that  day,  as  a  vineyard  of  wine,  afflict  her,  or  in  that  day  afflict  for  her 
the  vineyard  of  wine.  It  is  then  a  defiance  or  permission  of  the  enemies  of 
the  Church  to  afflict  her,  with  an  intimation  that  in  carrying  out  this  idea, 
the  expressions  will  be  borrowed  from  the  figure  of  a  \dneyard,  as  in  chap.  v. 
1-6.  19c  strictly  ^enoies  fermentation,  then  fermented  liquor,  and  is  used 
as  a  poetical  equivalent  to  H!.  It  has  been  objected  that  this  idea  is  involved 
in  that  of  a  vineyard,  but  such  apparent  pleonasms  are  common  in  all  languages, 
as  when  we  speak  of  a  ivell  of  water  or  a  coal  of  fire.  Besides,  D"I3  seems 
to  have  originally  had  a  latitude  of  meaning  not  unlike  that  of  orchard  in 
English,  and  we  actually  read  of  a  n^T  Dn?  (not  a  vineyard  but  an  olive-yard). 
Josh.  XV.  5,  "iPD  may  therefore  have  been  added  to  complete  the  phrase, 
or  to  preclude  all  doubt  as  to  the  meaning,  either  of  which  suppositions 
renders  it  superfluous  to  borrow  the  sense  red  ivine  from  the  Arabic,  as 
Kimchi  does,  and  to  assume  that  the  Hebrews  set  a  special  value  upon  this 
sort.  Much  less  is  it  necessary  to  amend  the  text  by  reading  lOn  D"i3, 
pleasant  or  beloved  vineyard.  The  analogous  expression  n^n  *D")3,  Amos  v. 
11,  only  makes  a  change  in  this  place  more  improbable,  not  to  mention 
the  endless  licence  of  conjecture,  which  would  be  introduced  into  the  criticism 
of  the  text,  by  adopting  the  principle  that  phrases,  which  partially  resemble 
one  another,  must  be  made  to  do  so  altogether.  As  a  closing  suggestion, 
not  at  all  necessary  to  the  exposition,  but  tending  to  explain  in  some  degree 
the  form  of  the  original,  it  may  here  be  added,  that  the  Masoretie  interpunc- 
tion  may  have  been  intended  to  suggest  an  interval  of  time  between  the 
clauses,  as  if  he  had  said,  in  that  day  (shall  this  come  to  pass,  but  in  the 
meantime)  afflict  her,  &c. 

3.  /  Jehovah  (am)  keeping  her  ;  every  moment  I  will  water  her ;  lest  any 
hurt  her,  night  and  clay  will  I  keep  her.  That  is,  in  spite  of  the  afflictions 
which  befall  her  I  will  still  preserve  her  from  destruction.  The  antecedent 
of  the  pronouns  is  the  same  as  in  ver.  2,  viz.  the  Church  or  nation  con- 
sidered as  a  vineyard.  D''V^"?  •  literally  means  at  moments  or  as  to  moments, 
but  its  sense  is  determined  by  the  analogous  D11|'^?7,  every  morning.  Kimchi 
takes  HvJ^  as  a  noun,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  some  later  writers,  who 
explain  the  clause  to  mean,  lest  one  hurt  a  leaf  of  her,  or  lest  a  leaf  of  her  he 
wanting.  But  the  want  of  any  usage  to  justify  such  an  explanation  of  ^p?!, 
and  the  construction  of  the  same  verb  in  ver.  1  with  the  preposition  ^11,  leave  no 
doubt  that  the  usual  explanation  is  the  true  one.  To  visit  upon  has  here 
its  common  meaning  of  inflicting  evil  upon,  but  without  any  special  refer- 
ence to  crime  or  punishment.  As  the  expression  is  a  relative  one,  it  must 
here  be  understood,  according  to  the  context,  as  denoting  at  least  excessive 
injury. 

4.  Of  all  the  senses  put  upon  this  difficult  verse,  there  are  only  two 
which  can  be  looked  upon  as  natural  or  probable.  The  first  may  be  para- 
phrased as  follows  :  It  is  not  because  I  am  cruel  or  revengeful  that  I  thus 
afflict  my  people,  but  because  she  is  a  vineyard  overrun  with  thorns  or 


438  ISAIAE  XXVII.  [Ver.  5. 

briers,  on  account  of  which  I  must  pass  through  her  and  consume  her 
{i.  e.  bum  them  out  of  her).  The  other  is  this  :  I  am  no  longer  angry  with  my 
people  ;  0  that  their  enemies  (as  thorns  and  briers)  would  array  them- 
selves against  me,  that  I  might  rush  upon  them  and  consume  them.  This 
last  is  preferred  by  most  of  the  later  writers.  The  objection  that  no  longer 
has  to  be  supplied  is  of  little  weight.  A  more  important  one  is  tliat  the 
feminine  suthx  is  referred  to  the  masculine  nouns  1"??'^'  and  ^''}^.  To  this 
it  may  be  answered,  first,  that  the  feminine  in  Hebrew  often  corresponds 
to  the  Greek  and  Latin  neuter ;  and  secondly,  that  a  free  use  of  the  femi- 
nine, where  the  masculine  might  have  been  expected,  is  characteristic  of 
this  passage.  See  particularly  ver.  11  below,  to  which  some  would  add  the 
application  of  the  feminine  pronoun  throughout  the  passage  to  the  mascu- 
line noun  D!^3.  This  grammatical  peculiarity,  under  other  circumstances, 
would  no  doubt  have  been  alleged  as  the  mark  of  a  different  writer.  But 
if  the  author  of  chaps,  xxiv.-xxvii.  can  use  expressions  in  chap,  xxvii. 
which  he  does  not  use  in  the  others,  why  may  not  Isaiah,  as  the  author  of 
the  whole  book,  exhibit  similar  peculiarities  in  different  parts  of  a  collec- 
tion so  extended  ?  It  is  important  that  the  reader  should  take  every 
opportunity  to  mark  the  arbitrary  nature  of  the  proofs,  by  which  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  prophecies  has  been  assailed,  and  the  strange  conclusions  to 
which  they  would  lead,  if  applied  with  even-handed  justice.  The  objection 
to  the  first  interpretation  of  the  verse  is,  that  it  puts  a  forced  construction  on 
the  words  v  fN  n»n,  and  explains  ''^^0''  '•»  in  a  manner  not  consistent  with 
the  usage  of  the  phrase.  Lowth,  and  the  others  who  suppose  a  dramatic 
structure,  are  obliged  to  read  nph  with  the  Seventy,  and  to  make  this  verse 
a  complaint  of  the  vineyard  that  it  has  no  wall,  and  an  expression  of  its 
wish  that  it  had  a  thorn-hedge,  to  which  God  replies  that  he  would  still 
pass  through  it.  Schnurrer,  however,  makes  even  the  last  clause  the 
words  of  the  vine^yard,  by  arbitrarily  supplying  wlicn  they  say,  i.  e.  when  my 
enemy  says,  I  will  march  against  it,  &c. 

5.  Or  let  him  lay  hold  of  my  strcnyth  and  make  peace  irith  me;  peace  let 
him  make  with  me.  The  verbs  are  properly  indefinite  (let  one  take  hold, 
&c.),  but  referring  to  the  enemy  described  in  the  preceding  verse  as  thorns 
and  briers.  TIVD  commonly  denotes  a  strong  place  or  fortress,  and  is  here 
understood  by  most  interpreters  to  signify  a  refuge  or  asylum,  with  allusion 
to  the  practice  of  laying  hold  upon  the  altar.  Vitringa  even  goes  so  far  as 
to  suppose  that  the  horns  of  the  altar  are  themselves  so  called  because  the 
strenylh  of  certain  animals  is  in  their  horns.  Lowth  gives  the  word  the 
sense  of  strength  afforded  or  protection.  The  general  meaning  is  the  same 
in  either  case,  viz.  that  the  alternative  presented  to  the  enemy  is  that  of 
destruction  or  submission.  The  abbreviated  future  is  employed  as  usual 
to  express  a  proposition.  B}'  vaiying  the  translation  of  the  futures,  the 
sentence  may  be  made  more  pointed ;  let  him  make  peace  (or  if  he  will 
make  peace),  he  shall  make  peace.  But  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  the 
variation,  and  the  imperative  meaning  of  HK^'y  seems  to  be  determined  by 
that  of  ptn\  Of  the  various  senses  ascribed  to  IJ*  (such  as  toiless,  oh  that 
if,  &c.),  the  only  one  justified  by  usage  is  the  disjunctive  sense  of  or. 
Lowth's  dramatic  arrangement  of  the  text  assigns  the  fii'st  clause  to 
Jehovah  and  the  second  to  the  vineyard.  J.  Ah  !  let  her  rather  take  hold 
of  my  protection.  V.  Let  him  make  peace  uilh  me!  Peace  let  him  make 
uith  me.  If  the  thorns  and  briers  of  ver.  4  be  referred  to  the  internal  con- 
dition of  the  Church,  this  may  be  understood  as  having  reference  to  the 
Church  itself,  which  is  then  called  upon  to  make  its  peace  with  God  as  the 


Ver.  6-8. J  ISAIAH  XXVII.  439 

only  means  of  escaping  further  punishment.  Gesenius  speaks  of  the  repe- 
tition and  inversion  in  the  last  clause  as  a  very  imperfect  kind  of  parallelism 
extremely  common  in  the  Zabian  books  ! 

6.  (In)  comuKi  {ilai/n)  shall  Jacob  take  root,  Israel  shall  bud  and  blossom, 
and  they  shall  fill  the  face  of  the  earth  uith  fruit.  The  construction  of  the 
first  clause  in  the  English  Bible  [them  that  come  of  Jacob  shall  he  cause  to 
take  root)  is  forbidden  by  the  collocation  of  the  words,  and  by  the  usage 
of  the  verb,  which  always  means  to  take  root.  The  same  remark  applies 
to  another  construction  {them,  that  come  to  Jacob),  which  applies  the  words 
to  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  If  there  were  any  sufficient  reason  for 
departing  from  the  Masoretic  interpunction,  the  sentence  might  be  thus 
arranged  with  good  eftect  :  theij  that  come  {i.  e.  the  next  generation)  shall 
take  root  ;  Jacob  shall  bud  ;  Israel  shall  blossom,  &c.  It  is  best,  however, 
to  retain  the  usual  construction  indicated  by  the  accents,  "l^^^l?  may  possi- 
bly agree  with  ^^y-^)  as  a  collective  ;  but  as  the  other  verbs  are  singular, 
the  plural  form  of  this  appears  to  imply  a  reference  to  both  names,  though 
belonging  to  one  person.  Or  as  ^<!?  is  both  an  active  and  a  neuter  verb, 
it  ma}'  be  construed  with  the  plural  noun  ''^.?,  the  face  of  the  world  shall  be 
filled,  with  fruit.  T'?FI  does  not  mean  the  land  of  Israel,  but  the  world,  the 
whole  expression  being  strongly  metaphorical. 

7.  Like  the  smitinfj  of  his  smiter  did  he  smite  him,  or  like  the  slaying  of 
his  slain  tins  he  slain  !  Having  declared  in  the  preceding  verse  that  Israel 
should  hereafter  flourish,  he  now  adds  that  even  in  the  meantime  he  should 
suffer  vastly  less  than  his  oppressors.  Negation,  as  in  many  other  cases, 
is  expressed  by  interrogation.  Did  the  Lord  smite  Israel  as  he  smote  his 
smiters  or  slay  him  as  his  murderers  were  slain  ?  This  is  now  commonly 
agreed  to  be  the  meaning,  although  some  of  the  older  writers  understand 
the  verse  as  asking,  whether  God  smote  Israel  as  his  oppressors  smote  him, 
■^•hich  would  yield  a  good  sense,  but  one  less  suited  to  the  context.  To 
make  the  parallehsm  perfect,  VJIH  (his  slain)  should  be  VJ'^h  (his  slayers) ; 
but  this,  so  far  from  being  a  defect,  is  a  beauty,  since  Israel  could  not  have 
been  said  to  be  slain  without  destrojang  the  force  of  the  comparison.  The 
suffix  in  1"'^"|iD  is  to  be  referred  to  the  oppressors,  or  the  enemy. 

8.  In  measure,  by  sending  her  away,  thou  dost  contend  with  her.  He 
removes  (her)  by  his  hard  wind  in  the  day  of  the  east  wind.  The  negation 
implied  in  the  preceding  verse  is  here  expressed  more  distinctly.  The 
Prophet  now  proceeds  to  shew  that  Israel  was  not  dealt  with  like  his  ene- 
mies, by  first  describing  what  the  former  suffered,  then  what  the  latter. 
Israel  was  punished  moderately,  and  for  a  time,  by  being  removed  out  of 
his  place,  as  if  by  a  transient  storm  or  blast  of  wind.  Of  the  number- 
less senses  put  upon  riNDXD,  none  is  so  good  in  itself,  or  so  well  suited  to 
the  context  as  the  one  handed  down  by  tradition,  which  explains  it  as  a 
reduplicated  form  of  HXD,  strictly  denoting  a  particular  dry  measure,  but 
here  used  to  express  the  general  idea  of  measure,  /.  e.  moderation.  The 
meaning  measure  for  measure,  i.  e.  in  strict  justice,  is  preferred  by  some, 
but  this  would  either  do  away  with  the  comparison  of  Israel  and  his  ene- 
mies, or  imply  that  the  latter  suffered  more  than  they  deserved.  The 
feminine  suffixes  must  be  referred  to  the  Church  or  nation  as  a  wife,  which 
agi-ees  well  mth  the  verb  H^'K',  used  in  the  law  to  denote  repudiation  or 
divorce.  The  same  verb  is  also  used  to  signify  the  sending  down  of  judg- 
ments upon  men,  which  sense  some  prefer  in  this  case,  and  refer  the  suffix 
both  in  this  word  and  the  nest  to  the  stroke  or  punishment.     In  sending 


440  ISAIAH  XXV IL  [Ver.  9. 

it  upon  them  thou  dost  strive  with  it,  or  try  to  mitigate  it.  But  the  other 
explanation  is  more  natural,  and  has  the  advantage  of  explicitly  intimating 
the  precise  form  of  the  punishment  endured.  The  change  of  person  in  the 
last  clause  is  abrupt,  but  of  too  frequent  occurrence  to  excite  surprise,  i^^y} 
is  interpreted  by  Kimchi  as  synonymous  with  I^PD,  to  remove  or  take 
away.  Its  object  is  to  be  supplied  from  the  first  clause  ;  its  subject  is 
Jehovah.  The  east  wind  is  mentioned  as  the  most  tempestuous  in  Pales- 
tine. The  dtnj  of  the  east  wind  is  supposed  by  some  to  denote  the  season 
of  the  year  when  it  prevails  ;  but  it  is  rather  used  to  intimate  the  tempo- 
rary nature  of  the  chastisement,  as  if  he  had  said,  one  day  when  the  east 
wind  chanced  to  blow.  The  fii'st  nn  is  by  some  translated  sjnnt,  and 
supposed  to  be  expressive  of  the  divine  displeasure  ;  but  it  is  not  probable 
that  the  word  would  be  so  soon  used  in  a  different  sense,  and  the  very 
repetition  adds  to  the  force  and  beauty  of  the  sentence,  a  strong  ivind  in 
the  day  of  the  east  xcind.  ^'''ID  might  be  taken  as  a  future  proper  ;  but  the 
use  of  the  preterite  in  the  next  clause  seems  to  shew  that  both  were  meant 
to  be  descriptive  presents. 

9.  Therefore  (because  his  chastisement  was  temporary'  and  remedial  in 
design)  by  this  (affliction)  shall  Jacob's  iniquity  be  expiated  [i.e.  purged 
away),  and  this  is  all  (its)  fruit  (or  intended  eU'ect)  to  take  auay  his  sin, 
(as  will  appear)  in  his  placiny  all  the  stones  of  the  (idolatrous)  altar  lilce 
limestones  dashed  in  pieces  (so  that)  groves  and  solar  images  (or  images  of 
Ashtoreth  and  Baal)  shall  arise  no  more.  The  contrast  between  Israel  and 
Babylon  is  still  continued.  Having  said  that  the  affliction  of  the  former 
was  but  moderate  and  temporary,  he  now  adds  that  it  was  meant  to  pro- 
duce a  most  beneficent  efiect,  to  wit,  the  purgation  of  the  people  from  the 
foul  stain  of  idolatiy.  "l???,  though  it  strictly  means  shall  be  atoned  for,  is 
here  metonymically  used  to  denote  the  efiect  and  not  the  cause,  purification 
and  not  expiation.  In  the  very  same  way  it  is  applied  to  the  cleansing  of 
inanimate  objects.  There  is  no  need  of  rendering  ]??  either  but  or  because, 
as  the  strict  and  usual  meaning,  though  less  obvious,  is  perfectly  appro- 
priate. As  the  punishment  was  moderate  and  temporary,  it  was  therefore 
not  destructive  but  remedial.  Some  understand  by  this,  the  act  described 
in  the  last  clause,  viz.,  that  of  destroying  the  idolatrous  altar.  But  the 
preference  is  always  due  in  such  constructions  to  an  antecedent  literally 
going  before,  i.  e.  already  mentioned.  Besides,  the  destruction  of  the  idols 
could  not  be  the  cause  of  the  purification  which  produced  it,  unless  we  take 
"133*  in  the  strict  sense  of  atonement,  which  would  be  incongruous,  and  in- 
consistent with  the  teachings  of  Scripture  elsewhere,  not  to  mention  that  in 
that  case  the  moral  cff"ect  of  the  captivity  is  not  described  at  all.  The  sense 
required  by  the  connection  is,  not  that  the  breaking  of  the  altars,  as  a 
spontaneous  act,  atoned  for  Israel's  previous  idolatry,  but  that  the  exile 
cured  them  of  that  vice,  and  thereby  led  to  the  breaking  of  the  altars.  The 
construction,  tins  is  all  the  fruit  of  the  removal  of  his  sin,  afibrds  an  incon- 
gi'uous  and  inappropriate  sense,  viz.,  that  the  only  efiect  of  this  great  re- 
volution was  the  breaking  of  the  idol  altars.  The  true  construction  is  the 
one  pointed  out  by  the  disjunctive  accent  under  '"i?.  which  marks  it  as  the 
subject  of  the  proposition  of  which  "ipn  is  the  predicate.  Some  refer  the 
suffix  in  IDIt;'?  to  Jehovah,  or  the  enemy,  and  the  whole  clause  to  his 
demolition  of  the  altar  at  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem.  But  besides  the 
arbitrary  change  of  subject,  this  would  seem  to  refer  the  moral  improve- 
ment of  the  exiles,  not  to  their  affliction  but  to  the  destruction  of  their 
idols  at  Jerusalem,  which,  even  if  consistent  with  the  fact,  would  be  irrele- 


Vek.  10,  ll.J  ISAIAH  XXVII.  ill 

vant  in  this  connection,  where  the  Prophet  is  shewing  the  beneficent  eflects 
of  the  removal  of  the  people.  That  the  altar  is  not  the  altar  of  Jehovah,  is 
apparent  from  the  mention  of  the  idol  in  the  last  clause.  (For  the  mean- 
ing of  Q"'^^n  and  C?^.'*?.,  vide  svpra,  chap.  xvii.  8.)  Cocceius  seems  to 
understand  the  verse  as  a  prediction  that  the  Jews  should  no  longer  pay  a 
superstitious  regard  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  By  "ir\5?^  we  may 
either  understand  some  kind  of  stone  commonly  used  in  building,  or  the 
fragments  of  stone  and  mortar  scattered  by  the  demolition  of  an  altar. 
•ItDj^^  a?  may  either  mean  shall  not  rise  arfain,  or  shall  stand  no  more,  both 
implying  their  complete  destruction.  The  prophetic  description  which  this 
verse  involves  was  fully  and  gloriously  verified  in  histoiy. 

10.  For  a  fenced  {ox  fortijied)  city  shall  be  desolate,  a  dicelling  broken  up 
and  forsaken  like  the  wilderness.  There  shall  the  calj  feed,  and  there  shall  it 
lie  and  consume  her  branches.  Hero  begins  the  other  part  of  the  compari- 
son. While  Israel  is  chastised  in  measure  and  ^vith  the  happiest  efiect,  his 
oppressors  are  given  up  to  final  desolation.  This  explanation  of  the  verse, 
as  referring  to  Babylon,  is  strongly  recommended  by  the  fact,  that  the 
comparison  otherwise  remains  unfinished,  only  one  side  of  it  having  been 
presented.  Apart  from  this  consideration,  there  are  certaiulj'  strong 
reasons  for  supposing  the  city  meant  to  be  Jerusalem  itself.  One  of  these 
reasons  is,  that  the  figure  of  a  vineyard  seems  to  be  still  present  to  the 
"writer's  mind,  at  the  close  of  this  verse  and  throughout  the  next,  altbough 
the  terms  used  admit  of  a  natm'al  application  to  the  figure  of  a  tree. 
Another  reason  is,  that  the  desolation  here  described  is  not  so  total  as  that 
threatened  against  Babylon  in  chap.  siii.  19-22,  where,  instead  of  saying 
it  shall  be  a  pasture,  it  is  said  expressly  that  it  shall  not  even  be  frequented 
by  flocks  or  herds.  But  these  two  places  may  have  reference  to  difterent 
degrees  of  desolation.  In  favour  of  the  reference  to  Babylon  may  be 
alleged  the  natural  consecution  of  the  twelfth  verse  upon  that  hypothesis. 
On  the  whole,  the  question  may  be  looked  upon  as  doubtful,  but  as  not 
materially  afiecting  the  interpretation  of  the  chapter,  since  either  of  the 
two  events  supposed  to  be  foretold  would  be  appropriate  in  this  connection. 
nX'?^  properly  means  sent  awaij,  but  seems  to  be  applied  in  chap.  xvi.  1  to 
a  bird's  nest,  the  occupants  of  which  are  scattered.  The  whole  phi'ase 
here  may  suggest  the  idea  of  a  family  or  household  which  is  broken  up  and 
its  residence  forsaken.  H^^VP  i^  ^J  some  understood  to  mean  its  heights  qv 
hills  ;  but  the  more  usual  sense  of  branches  is  entirely  appropriate.  This 
may  be  understood  of  the  vegetation  springing  up  among  ruins  ;  but  it 
seems  best  to  refer  it  to  the  image  of  a,  tree,  which  is  distinctly  presented 
in  the  following  verse.  According  to  Vitringa,  the  calf  means  pious  men 
who  grow  in  spiritual  strength,  to  which  interpretation  we  may  apply  the 
■words  of  the  same  excellent  writer,  in  commenting  upon  Jerome's  notion, 
that  the  devil  in  ver.  1  is  called  a  bar  because  he  imprisons  many  souls. 
Saepe  mihi  mirari  contingit,  homines  ejusmodi  cogitationes  aut  loquendi 
formas  imputare  Spiritui  Sancto,  quas  sibi  vir  sapiens  imputare  nollet. 

11.  In  the  withering  of  its  boughs  {ox  when  its  boughs  are  withered)  tJteg 
shall  be  broken  off.  iromen  coming  and  burning  them;  because  it  is  not  a 
people  of  understanding,  therefore  its  Creator  shall  not  pitg  it,  and  its  Maker 
shall  not  hare  mercy  on  it.  The  destruction  of  Babylon  is  still  described, 
but  under  the  figure  of  a  tree,  whose  branches  are  withered  and  cast  intt) 
the  fire.  Women  are  mentioned,  not  in  allusion  to  the  weakness  of  the  in- 
struments by  which  Babylon  was  to  be  destroj-ed,  but  because  the  gathering 
of  firewood  in  the  East  is  the  work  of  women  and  childi-en.     ni'T'SD  is  not 


442  ISAIAH  XXVII.  [Yee.  12,  13. 

simply  scUinri  on  fire,  but  inaUhui  a  fire  of,  or  burniiif}  ^lp.  The  construction 
of  this  last  clause  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to  the  absolute  genitive  in 
Greek,  and  ablative  in  Latin.  The  last  clause  contains  a  double  instance 
of  litotes  or  meiosis.  According  to  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures,  not  nise 
here  means  foolish  in  the  strongest  sense,  and  God's  not  pityiiifj  and  not 
having  mercy  is  equivalent  to  his  being  very  \n-oih.  and  taking  vengeance. 
"i^Vi?,  which  usually  means  a  harvest,  in  a  few  places  seems  to  have  the  sense 
of  a  bough,  or  of  boughs  collectively.  The  feminine  pronouns  in  the  first 
clause  must  refer  to  1''V  or  >'5?  understood ;  the  masculine  pronouns  of  the 
last  clause  refer  of  course  to  Cj;y. 

12.  And  it  shall  be  in  that  datj,  titat  Jehovah  shall  beat  ojjf  [or  gather  in 
his  fruit)  from  the  channel  of  the  rirer  to  the  stream  of  Kfnjpt,  and  ye  shall 
be  ijathered  one  by  one  (or  one  to  another)  0  ye  children  of  Israel.  To  the 
downfall  of  Babylon  he  now  adds,  as  in  chap.  xi.  1,  its  most  important  con- 
sequence, viz.,  the  restoration  of  the  Jews,  t^nn  is  to  beat  fruit  (and  par- 
ticularly olives)  from  the  tree.  {Vide  supra,  chap.  xvii.  G.)  Henderson 
here  translates  ^^n^^,  sliall  hare  an  olive  harvest.  The  idea  meant  to  be  con- 
ve^-ed  is  that  of  a  careful  and  complete  ingathering.  Q^TiVP  ?n?  is  explained 
by  some  of  the  older  writers  as  denoting  the  great  valley  of  the  Nile ;  by 
others,  the  Nile  itself;  but  is  now  commonly  agreed  to  signify  the  Wady 
el-Arish,  anciently  called  lUiinocorura,  which  name  is  given  to  it  here  by  the 
Septuagint.  The  rirer  is  as  usual  the  Euphrates.  The  simple  meaning  of 
the  whole  expression  is,  from  Assyria  to  Kyypt,  both  which  are  expressly 
mentioned  in  the  next  verse.  'inN  is  properly  the  construct  form,  but  occurs 
in  several  places  as  the  absolute.  One  of  these  places  is  Zech.  xi.  7,  from 
which  it  cannot  be  inferred,  however,  that  this  use  of  the  form  betrays  a 
later  age,  for  it  occui-s  not  only  in  2  Sam.  xvii.  22,  but  in  Gen.  xlviii.  22. 
Gesenius  puts  upon  this  verse  the  forced  construction,  that  the  whole  laud, 
as  possessed  of  old  by  David  and  Solomon,  should  be  repeopled  as  abun- 
dantly and  suddenly  as  if  men  fell  from  the  trees  like  olives.  Having  given 
this  gratuitous  per\crsion  of  a  natural  and  simple  metaphor,  he  then  apolo- 
gises for  it  as  ojfensire  to  our  taste  (fiir  unseren  Geshmack  anstussig),  no 
unfair  sample  of  the  way  in  which  the  sacred  writers  are  sometimes  made 
to  suffer  for  the  erroneous  judgment  and  bad  taste  of  their  interpreters. 
The  later  writers  are  almost  unanimous  in  setting  this  construction  of  the 
words  aside  and  giving  them  their  true  sense,  which  is  not  only  the  obvious 
one,  but  absolutely  required  by  the  phrase  IH^  "in5<?,  which  cannot  mean 
the  sudden  streaming  in  of  a  great  multitude,  but  must  denote  the  thorough 
and  complete  ingathering  of  what  might  otherwise  be  lost  or  left  behind. 
The  precise  sense  of  this  Hebrew  phrase  is  not  well  expressed  by  the 
English  one  by  one,  which  seems  to  represent  the  process  as  a  gradual  one. 
It  rather  denotes  one  to  one,  i.  e.  in  our  idiom,  one  to  another,  all  together, 
or  without  exception.  From  what  has  been  already  said  it  will  be  seen, 
that  the  boundaries  named  are  not  intended  to  define  the  territory  which 
should  be  occupied  by  those  returning,  but  the  regions  whence  they  should 
return,  which  explanation  is  contu-med,  moreover,  by  the  explicit  terms  of 
the  next  verse. 

13.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pafs)  in  that  day,  (that)  a  r/rcat  trumpet 
shall  be  bloiun,  and  they  shall  come  that  xuere  lost  (or  tvandcriny)  in  the  land 
0/  Assyria,  and  those  cast  out  (or  exiled)  in  the  land  of  Eijypt,  and  shall 
bow  doxon  to  Jehovah,  in  the  holy  mountain,  in  Jerusalem.  The  same  event 
is  here  described  as  in  the  verso  preceding,  but  with  a  change  of  figure. 
What  is  there  represented  as  a  gathering  of  olives  by  beating  the  tree,  is 


Vek.  13.]  ISAIAH  XXVIII.  443 

now  represented  as  a  gathering  of  men  by  the  blast  of  a  trumpet,  which 
here  takes  the  place  of  a  signal-pole  or  flag  in  chap.  xi.  12.  This  variety 
of  forms,  in  which  the  same  idea  is  expressed,  clearly  shows  the  whole  de- 
scription to  be  figurative.  Assyria  and  Egypt  maj'  be  either  put  for  foreign 
countries  generally,  or  with  particular  allusion  to  the  actual  emigration  and 
dispersion  of  the  Jews  in  these  two  regions.  Assyria  may  here  be  used  as 
a  comprehensive  term,  in  order  to  include  both  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian 
deportations.  For  although  the  ten  tribes  never  were  restored,  individual 
members  of  them  found  their  way  back  with  the  Jews  from  Babylon.  On 
the  whole,  however,  it  is  probable  that  Egypt  and  Assyria  are  here  named, 
just  as  Babylonia  and  the  islands  of  the  sea  might  have  been  named  instead 
of  them,  and  just  as  all  these  names  and  others  are  connected  elsewhere,  to 
denote  the  various  lands  where  Jews  were  scattered.  The  emigration  of 
the  people,  especiall}'  after  Nebuchadnezzar's  conquests,  was  of  course  not 
confined  to  their  actual  deportation  by  the  enemy,  nor  was  the  restoration 
merely  that  of  such  as  had  been  thus  carried  captive,  but  of  all  who,  in  con- 
sequence of  that  catastrophe  or  any  other,  had  been  transferred  to  foreign 
parts  by  exile,  flight,  or  voluntary  expatriation.  The  application  of  this 
verse  to  a  future  restoration  of  the  Jews  can  neither  be  established  nor  dis- 
proved. If  such  a  restoration  can  be  otherwise  shewn  to  be  a  subject  of 
prophecy,  this  passage  may  be  naturally  understood  at  least  as  compre- 
hending it.  But  in  itself  considered,  it  appears  to  contain  nothing  which 
may  not  be  naturally  applied  to  events  long  past,  or  which  has  not  found  in 
those  events  an  adequate  fulfilment,  ypljl?  is  an  impersonal  verb,  it  shall  be 
blown  on  the  trumpet.  According  to  Gesenius  this  verb  denotes  a  single 
blast,  as  opposed  to  a  continuous  winding  of  the  trumpet.  He  finds  no 
difficulty  in  reconciling  his  hypothesis,  as  to  the  date  of  the  prediction,  with 
the  mention  of  Assyria,  on  the  ground  that  Assyria  still  formed  a  part  of 
the  Babylonian  empire,  that  the  name  was  used  with  latitude  not  only  by 
the  classical  but  the  sacred  writers,  that  the  Prophet  perhaps  designedly 
avoided  to  name  Babylon  expressly,  and  that  this  verse  perhaps  was  partly 
taken  from  an  older  composition  belonging  to  the  times  of  the  Assyrian 
ascendancy.  How  much  hypotheses,  as  plausible  as  these,  are  allowed  by 
Gesenius  himself  to  weigh,  in  behalf  of  the  genuineness  of  the  prophecies, 
we  have  already  had  occasion  to  observe,  and  shall  yet  have  occasion  to 
observe  hereafter. 


CHAPTEE  XXVIII. 

Samaria,  the  crown  of  Ephraim,  shall  be  cast  down  by  a  sudden  and 
impetuous  invasion,  as  a  just  judgment  upon  sensual  and  impious  Israel, 
vers.  1-4.  To  the  remnant  of  Israel,  Jehovah  will  himself  be  a  crown  and 
a  protection,  a  source  of  wisdom  and  of  strength,  vers.  5,  6.  Yet  even 
these  imitate  the  example  of  apostate  Israel,  and  in  their  self-indulgence  cast 
off  the  authority  of  God  and  refuse  the  instructions  of  his  prophet,  to  their 
own  undoing,  vers.  7-13.  But  their  impious  contempt  of  God  and  self- 
reliance  shall  but  hasten  their  destruction.  All  who  do  but  b^^ild  upon  the 
sure  foundation  laid  in  Zion,  must  inevitabl}'  perish,  as  the  enemies  of  Israel 
were  destroyed  of  old,  vers.  14-22.  The  delay  of  judgment  no  more  proves 
that  it  will  never  come,  than  the  patience  of  the  husbandman,  and  his  pre- 
parator}'  labours,  prove  that  he  expects  no  harvest ;  and  the  diflerence  of 
God's  dealintfs  with  different  men  is  no  more  inconsistent  with  his  general 


444  ISAIAH  XXVIII.  iVi;u.  1. 

purposes  of  wrath  or  mercy,  thau  the  husbandman's  treatment  of  the  tlift'e- 
rent  grains  is  inconsistent  with  his  general  purpose  of  securing  and  enjoy- 
ing thcui,  vers.  23-29. 

This  chapter  is  by  most  of  the  late  ^\Titcrs  joined  with  chaps,  xxix.-xxxiii., 
as  belonging  to  the  same  date  and  subject.  Ewald  without  sufficient  ground 
regards  it  as  a  later  composition.  The  elaborate  attempts,  made  by  Hitzig 
and  others,  to  determine  the  precise  date  of  the  composition,  as  they  rest  on 
no  sufficient  data,  are  of  course  unsatisfactory  and  inconclusive.  It  was 
obviously  written  before  the  downfall  of  Samaria,  but  how  long  before  is 
neither  ascertainable  nor  of  importance  to  the  exposition  of  the  prophecy. 

1.  Woe  to  the  hicjh  crown  of  the  drunkards  of  Ephraim,  and  the  fading 
flower^  his  ornament  ofheauUj,  tvhich  (is)  on  the  head  of  the  fat  valley  of  the 
loine- smitten.  Here,  as  in  chap.  ix.  9,  21,  xi.  13,  we  arc  to  understand  by 
Ephraim  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  by  the  drunJcards  of  Ephraim  its 
vicious  population,  and  by  the  lofty  crown  the  city  of  Samaria,  so  called  as 
the  chief  town  and  the  royal  residence,  but  also  with  allusion  to  its  local 
situation  on  an  insulated  hill  overlooking  a  rich  plain  or  valley.  "  It  would 
be  difficult  to  find,  in  all  Palestine,  a  situation  of  equal  strength,  fertility, 
and  beauty  combined"  (Robinson's  Palestine,  iii.  146).  Most  interpre- 
ters assume  a  further  allusion  to  the  practice  of  wearing  wreaths  or  garlands 
at  feasts.  Lowth  and  Geseuius  suppose  this  to  be  the  only  reason  why 
the  men  of  Ephraim  are  here  called  drunkards,  q.  d.  like  the  crown  which 
drunkards  wear  at  feasts,  so  is  Samai-ia  a  crown  to  Ephraim.  Others,  with 
more  probabilit_y,  invert  the  process,  and  suppose  the  figure  of  a  garland  to 
have  been  suggested  by  the  description  of  the  people  as  drunkards.  Ewald 
combines  the  two  hypotheses  by  saying  that  as  Samaria  was  in  its  situation 
like  a  crown,  and  as  the  people  were  habitually  drunk,  the  city  is  poetically 
represented  as  a  reveller's  crown.  The  reference  to  literal  intoxication  ap- 
pears plain  from  a  comparison  of  Amos  iv.  1,  6,  i.  6.  Drunkenness  is 
mentioned,  not  as  the  only  prevalent  iniquity,  but  as  a  crpng  one,  and  one 
contributing  to  many  others.  The  moral  and  spiritual  consequences  of  this 
vice  must  be  taken  into  view  ;  but  the  exclusive  reference  of  the  words  to 
spiritual  drunkenness,  whether  delusion,  or  stupidity,  or  both,  seems  entirely 
untenable.  No  such  conclusion  can  be  drawn,  as  we  shall  see  below,  from 
chap.  xxix.  ^,  on  the  authority  of  which  the  Septuagint  seems  to  have  tran- 
slated P*  *07n,  in  the  verse  before  us,  iMsdUvng  civiv  o'hov.  The  same  Ver- 
sion has  confounded  '^y^y  with  ''^^?P'  and  rendered  it  (/.leduTol.  This  verse 
contains  three  examples  of  the  Hebrew  idiom,  which,  instead  of  an  adjective, 
uses  one  substantive  to  qualif}'  another  ;  crown  of  elevation  for  lofty  crown, 
beauty  of  fjlory  for  glorious  beauty,  and  valley  of  fatnesses  for  fat  valley. 
Yet  no  one  has  alleged  this  accumulation  of  peculiar  idioms  as  a  proof  of 
bad  taste  or  a  later  age.  Cocceius  greatly  adds  to  the  beauty  of  the  first 
clause,  by  explaining  n-INjl  of  physical  elevation  rather  than  of  pride.  Hit- 
zig supposes  two  distinct  comparisons,  that  of  the  city  to  a  crown,  and  that 
of  the  population  to  a  flower.  It  is  far  more  natural,  however,  to  apply 
both  clauses  to  Samaria,  and  to  suppose  that  the  figure  of  a  crown  is  ex- 
changed for  that  of  a  flower,  or  that  the  i<lea  throughout  the  verse  is  that 
of  a  wreath  or  garland,  which  is  really  included  under  the  name  crown. 
The  latter  member  of  the  first  clause  is  by  some  construed  thus,  and  the 
Jloiuer  whose  glorious  he auty  fades  ;  by  others,  for  example  the  English  ^er- 
mon  (Ejjhr aim)  lohose  glorious  leauty  is  a  fading  flower.  The  analog}-  of 
ver.  4  seems  to  shew,  however,  that  this  member  of  the  sentence  is  in  ap- 
position with  ri-ixa  riipi'  in  the  one  before  it,  which  construction  is,  more- 


Ver.  2.]  ISAIAR  XXVIIL  445 

over,  the  most  obvious  and  simple.  The  English  Version  also  mars  the 
beauty  of  the  first  clause,  by  making  D?'!'?!^  ""^S^^  not  a  genitive  but  a  dative. 
The  fading  floicer  implies  that  the  glory  of  Samaria  was  transient,  with  par- 
ticular allusion  to  its  approaching  overthrow  by  Shalmaneser.  Hitzig  and 
Ewald  render  Mn  as  a  mere  exclamation  (0!),  and  suppose  the  verse  to 
speak  of  Samaria  as  already  fallen.  Vatablus  strangely  understands  by 
D"'3pp'"N\|  the  head  of  the  reveller,  drenched  with  unguents  and  perfumes. 
Augusti  likewise  renders  it,  devi  Sammelpfatze  der  Salhen.  Q''?P^',  as  be- 
ing a  mere  qualifying  term,  retains  the  absolute  form,  althoiagh  the  phrase, 
considered  as  a  whole,  is  in  regimen  with  the  one  that  follows.  Examples 
of  a  similar  construction  may  be  found  in  chap.  x.  12,  and  1  Chron.  ix.  13. 
Wine-smitten  or  ivine- stricken  is  a  strong  description  of  the  intellectual  and 
moral  effects  of  drunkenness.  Gill's  lively  paraphrase  is  :  smitten,  beaten, 
knocked  down  with  it  as  with  a  hammer,  and  laid  prostrate  on  the  ground, 
where  they  lie  fixed  to  it,  not  able  to  get  up.  Analogous  expressions  are 
the  Greek  o/'iorX^^,  and  the  Latin  saucius  mew  and  percussus  vino.  Barnes 
sets  this  verse  do^^^l  as  a  proof,  that  the  inhabitants  of  wine  countries  are 
as  certainly  intemperate  as  those  which  make  use  of  ardent  spirits. 

2.  Behold,  there  is  to  the  Lord  (i.  e.  the  Lord  has)  a  strong  and  mighty 
one,  like  a  storm  of  hail,  a  destroying  tempest,  like  a  storm  of  mighty  runhing 
waters,  he  has  brought  {it)  to  the  ground  tvith  the  hand.  As  n^H  very  com- 
monly denotes  a  proximate  futurity,  Clericus  explains  it  as  equivalent  to 
mox  ;  but  in  this  case  it  appears  to  be  intended  merely  to  invite  attention 
to  the  following  description,  as  of  a  scene  or  action  present  to  the  senses. 
The  oldest  editions  of  the  Hebrew  text,  and  a  large  number  of  manuscripts, 
read  nirf  instead  of  ''31N.  Lowth  understands  to  the  Lord  as  expressing 
a  superlative,  like  the  analogous  expression  before  the  Lord  in  Gen.  x.  9, 
and  translates  accordingly,  the  mighty  one,  the  exceedingly  strong  one.  Hen- 
derson supposes  ?  to  denote  possession,  and  translates  of  Jehovah.  Luther 
has  from,  which  is  retained  by  Gesenius,  who,  moreover,  introduces  the 
verb  comes.  Hitzig  explains  the  ^  as  denoting  efficient  agent,  as  it  is  said 
to  do  after  passive  verbs,  corresponding  to  the  English  hy.  But  this  use 
of  the  particle  is  very  doubtful,  and  at  least  unnecessary  in  the  case  be- 
fore us.  The  simplest  construction,  and  the  one  most  agreeable  to  usage, 
is  that  given  by  Hendewerk,  Ewald,  and  Knobel,  there  is  to  Jehovah,  i.  e. 
Jehovah  has,  has  ready,  has  in  reserve.  {Vide  supra,  chaps,  ii.  12,  xxii.  5). 
The  English  Version  therefore  (the  Lord  hath)  is  in  sense  entirely  correct. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  follows  the  Peshito  in  taking  P|n  and  f'?^?  as  abstracts 
meaning  power  and  strength.  Of  those  versions  which  translate  them 
strictly  as  adjectives,  the  Vulgate  makes  them  epithets  of  God  himself, 
{validus  etfortis  Dominiis)  and  so  overlooks  the  ?  altogether;  Jarchi  con- 
strues them  with  ivind,  Kimchi  with  day,  and  others  with  army  understood ; 
Cocceius  and  Vitringa  make  them  neuter  or  indefinite,  meaning  something 
strong  and  mighty ;  the  Targum  and  Rosenmiiller  construe  them  with 
strokes  or  visitations  understood;  but  most  interpreters,  including  the  most 
recent,  understand  them  as  descriptive  of  a  person,  and  apply  them  directly 
to  Shalmaneser  or  to  the  kings  of  Assyria  indefinitely.  For  tempest  of 
destruction  Cocceius  has  horror  excidii,  in  reference  to  the  meaning  of  the 
root  iy^  and  some  of  its  derivatives.  De  Dieu  reads  "^W  and  translates  it, 
in  the  gate  there  is  destruction ;  others,  through  the  gate  it  enters.  But  the 
common  version  {a  destroying  storm)  may  now  be  looked  upon  as  settled. 
The  last  clause  is  strangely  paraphrased  by  Jonathan  so  as  to  mean,  that  the 
enemy  shall  take  the  people  from  their  own  land  to  another,  on  account  of 


446  ISAIAH  XXriIl.  [Ver.  3,  4. 

the  iniquity  ^ountl  in  tlieir  hand.     The  mcfiniug  tv  the  earth  or  to  the  ground 
is  clear  from  chap.  Ixiii.  G,  and  other  cases.     The  Vulgate  confounds  the 
phrase  with  D.''!'^  Vv?  (chap.  xxii.  18),  and  translates  it  sN/vtv  terrnm  spatiosam. 
^*3  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  itilh  poirer,  as  in  the  Septuagint  (jS/a), 
Gesenius  gives  this  sense  to  1*  itself;  Rosenmiiller  supposes  an  ellipsis  of 
strong,  Hitzig,  of  outstretched,  Hendewerk,  an  allusion  to  a  rod  held  in  the 
hand.     Junius  explains  the  phrase  to  mean  irith   one  hand,  i.  e.  easily. 
There  seems,  however,  to  be  no  need  of  departing  from  the  strict  sense  of  the 
words  as  given  in  the  English  Version  {uith  the  hand),  and  hy  Ewald  with 
a  needless  change  of  hand  to  Jist.    It  then  completes  the  picture  by  describ- 
ing the  crown  of  Ephraim  as  torn  from  his  head  and  thrown  upon  the 
ground  by  the  hand  of  a  victorious  enemy.     To  this  explanation  no  objec- 
tion can  be  drawn  from  the  pre^•ious  mention  of  the  hail  and  rain  ;  for  these 
are  mere  comparisons,  descriptive  of  the  violence  with  which  the  enemy 
should  make  his  attack.    It  is  as  if  he  had  said,  a  strong  and  mighty  enem}', 
rushing  upon  you  like  a  hail-storm  or  a  driving  rain,  shall  cast  your  crown 
upon  the  earth  with  his  hand.     That  the  crown  is  tbe  object  of  the  verb 
n''3n,  may  be  safely  inferred  from  the  foregoing  and  the  following  verses, 
though  some  interpreters  have  made  it  govern  the  strong  and  mighty  one 
himself,  or  the  rain  and  storm  with  which  he  is  compared,  as  being  sent 
upon  the  eai'th  by  Jehovah.    Though  n''3n  should  be  rendered  as  a  preterite, 
it  does  not  follow  of  necessity  that  the  event  described  had  already  taken 
place,  but  merely  that  in  this  case  it  is  so  presented  to  the  Prophet's  view. 
3.   With   the  feet   shall   he   trodden   the   lofty   croicn  of  the  drunkards  of 
Kphraim.     It  is  cast  down  by  the  hand  and  trampled  under  foot.     This 
antithesis  makes  it  almost  certain  that  "I^  in  the  preceding  verse  is  to  be 
taken  in  its  proper  sense.     The  plural  form  of  the  verb  has  been  variously 
explained.    The  ancient  versions  all  translate  it  as  a  singular.    The  Rabbins 
make  mDJ?  a  collective.    Lo^th  reads  nilDJ/  in  the  plural.     Cocceius  refers 
the  verb  to  the  crown  and  tlower  separately.     Junius  puts  drunkards,  not  in 
construction  but  in  apposition  with  croun,  which  is  also  the  case  of  the 
English  Version  [the  crown  of  pride,  the  drunkards  of  Ejyhraim).     Vitringa 
explains  the  plural  form  upon  the  ground,  that  while  the  verse  literally 
relates  to  the  downfall  of  Samaria,  it  mystically  relates  to  the  downfall  of 
Jerusalem.     Clericus  simply  says  that  the  croun  meant  was  that  of  many 
persons  ;  Rosenmiiller  that  the  feminine  verb  is  used  as  neuter  ;  Hende- 
werk that  it  is  a  pluralis  mnjestaticus,  or  refers  to  Samaria  as  the  represen- 
tative of  the  other  towns  of  Israel.     Gesenius,  Hitzig,  and  Knobel,  seem  to 
be  agreed  that  it  is  an  anomalous  or  rather  idiomatic  use  of  the  plural  for  the 
singular,  as  inExod.  i.  10;  Judges  v.  2G;  Job  xvii.  IG.     There  is  great  pro- 
bability in  Henderson's  suggestion  that  the  HJ  in  all  such  cases  is  not  a 
feminine  but  a  paragogic  or  intensive  termination,  analogous  to  that  of  the 
antithetic  future  in  Ai'abic, 

4.  And  the  fading  Jlotrer  of  his  glorious  heautg,  uhich  is  on  the  head  of  the 
fat  valley,  shall  he  like  a  frst-ripe  fig  he/ore  summer,  xohich  he  that  sees  it 
sees,  and.  while  il  is  yet  in  his  hand  sivalloivs  it.  This  comparison  expres>se8 
the  avidity  with  which  the  enemy  would  seize  upon  Samaria,  and  perhaps 
the  completeness  of  its  desolation.  The  fruit  referred  to  is  the  early  fig  of 
Palestine  which  ripens  in  June,  while  the  regular  season  of  ingathering  is 
from  August  to  Kovember,  so  that  tbe  former  is  regarded  as  a  rarity  and 
eaten  with  the  greater  relish.  The  figure  is  not  here  intended  to  express 
either  ease  or  rapidity  of  conquest,  for  the  seige  of  Samaria  lasted  three 
years  (2  Kings  xvii.  5).     To  suppose,  with  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Henderson, 


Ver.  4.]  ISAIAJI XXVIII.  447 

that  a  siege  of  this  length  was  considered  short  compared  with  those  of  Tyre 
and  Askelon,  seems  very  forced.  The  immediate  eating  of  the  fruit  is 
only  mentioned  as  a  sign  of  eagerness  or  greediness.  Vitringa  understands 
the  simile  as  meaning  that  Samaria  when  taken  would  he  instantly  destroyed, 
as  the  first  ripe  fruit  is  eaten  and  not  stored  away.  This  would  also  remove 
the  apparent  discrepancy,  and  is  in  itself  not  improhahle,  although  less 
obvious  and  natural  than  the  explanation  first  proposed.  The  last  clause, 
though  singularly  worded,  evidently  means  that  as  soon  as  one  sees  it  and 
lays  hold  of  it  he  swallows  it  without  delay,  or  as  Gill  expresses  it  in  home- 
spun English,  "  as  soon  as  he  has  got  it  into  his  hand,  he  can't  keep  it  there 
to  look  at,  or  forbear  eating  it,  but  greedily  devours  it  and  swallows  it 
down  at  once."  "Ji^?,  however,  does  not  literally  mean  as  soon  as,  but 
while  yet,  which  renders  the  expression  sti'onger  still,  as  strictly  denoting 
that  he  eats  it  while  it  is  yet  in  his  hand.  The  Septuagint  expresses 
the  same  meaning  with  a  change  of  form,  by  saying  that  before  one  has  it  in 
his  hand  he  icisJies  to  devour  it.  The  same  Version  renders  np-133  TrgoSao/Aog 
ovxov,  and  Pliny  says,  Jicus  et  praecoces  habet  quas  Athenis  prodromes 
vocant.  Joseph  Kimchi  explained  ^3  to  mean  a  branch,  and  this  sense  is 
expressed  by  Luther,  who  understands  the  clause  to  mean,  that  the  fig  spoils 
or  perishes  (verdirbt)  while  one  still  sees  it  hanging  on  the  branch.  As  lij?^ 
means  literally  in  yet,  so  Dp???,  strictly  means  in  not  yet,  two  examples  of  a 
peculiar  Hebrew  idiom  in  a  single  sentence.  Hitzig,  in  order  to  refer  this 
verse  to  the  conquest  of  Samaria  as  alreadj^  past,  denies  that  the  1  at  the 
beginning  is  conversive,  and  refers  to  other  cases  where  it  is  simply  con- 
junctive, but  in  tbis  case  its  conversive  power  is  determined  by  the  fore- 
going future  n3pO"ir),  whereas  in  the  others  there  is  either  no  precedin« 
future,  or  it  is  contained  in  a  quotation  and  not  in  the  regular  order  of  dis- 
course. It  may  also  be  objected  to  Hitzig's  hypothesis,  that  the  ''in  in  ver.  1 
and  the  ^'^T[T\  D1»3  in  ver.  5,  both  imply  that  the  event  described  is  future. 
n^*''V  seems  to  be  a  more  euphonic  variation  of  '''"''^  in  ver.  4.  In  solving  its 
construction  with  what  follows,  Gesenius  and  most  of  the  late  writers  take 
??3  to  be  an  adjective  used  as  a  substantive  and  governed  regularly  by  OV^V 
flower  of  fadiny  for  fadiny  flower,  of  which  construction  there  are  some 
examples  elsewhere.  (See  chap.  xxii.  24;  Prov.  vi.  24,  xxiv.  25).  The  next 
clause  may  then  be  relatively  understood  (which  teas  his  ylorious  beauty), 
or  in  apposition  [the  fading  flower,  his  ylorious  beauty)  ;  but  Ewald  and 
many  of  the  older  writers  regard  this  phrase  as  in  regimen  with  what  follows 
[tJie  fadiny  flower  of,  &c.)  The  English  Version,  as  in  ver.  1,  makes 
?5i  nVV  the  predicate  [shall  be  a  fadiny  flower,  and  as,  &c.)  Hendewerk 
supposes  ?i?J,  the  fadiny  one,  to  be  an  epithet  of  Ephraim  himself.  X'^-P-  is 
the  fruit-harvest,  and  especially  the  ingathering  of  figs.  The  modern  critics 
are  agreed  that  the  final  syllable  of  n"n33,  although  written  in  most  manu- 
scripts with  mapipik,  is  not  a  suffix,  but  a  feminine  termination.  This 
name  of  the  early  fig  is  still  retained,  not  only  in  Arabic,  but  in  Spanish, 
into  which  it  was  transplanted  by  the  Moors.  Lowth's  decision,  that  nST 
HNin  is  a  miserable  tautoloyy,  is  worth  about  as  much  as  his  decision,  that 
Houbigant's  emendation  (mN''  for  HN"!*)  is  a  happy  conjecture.  The  tauto- 
logy, at  all  events,  is  no  more  miserable  here  than  in  chaps,  xvi.  10,  or 
xxviii.  24,  not  to  mention  2  Sam.  xvii.  9,  or  Ezek.  xxxiii.  4.  The  liberties 
which  critics  of  this  school  took  with  the  text,  and  the  language  which  they 
used  in  self-justification,  must  be  considered  as  having  contributed  in  some 
degree  to  the  subsequent  revolution  of  opinion  with  respect  to  points  of 
more  intrinsic  moment. 


418  ISAIAH  XXV III.  [Ver.  5-7. 

5.  In  that  day  shall  Jehovah  of  Hosts  he  for  (or  beeoine)  a  eroirn  of  heaufij 
and  a  diadem  of  f/Ionj  to  the  remnant  of  his  people.  By  the  remnant  of  the 
people  Jarchi  understands  those  of  the  ten  tribes  who  should  survive  the 
destruction  of  Samaria  ;  Knobel  the  rcnmant  of  Judah  itself,  which  sliould 
escape  Shalmancser's  invasion  expected  by  the  Prophet ;  Hendewerk  the 
remnant  of  Israel,  again  considered  as  one  body  after  the  fall  of  the  apos- 
tate kingdom ;  Kimchi  the  kingdom  of  the  two  tribes,  as  the  remnant  of 
the  whole  race.  This  last  approaches  nearest  to  the  true  sense,  which 
appears  to  be,  that  after  Samaria,  the  pride  of  the  apostate  tribes,  had 
fallen,  they  who  still  remained  as  members  of  the  church,  or  chosen  people, 
slK)uld  glory  and  delight  in  the  presence  of  Jehovah  as  their  choicest 
privilege  and  highest  honour.  The  expressions  are  borrowed  from  the  first 
verse,  but  presented  in  a  new  combination.  As  our  idiom  admits  in  this 
case  of  a  close  imitation  of  the  Hebrew,  the  common  version,  which  is 
strictly  literal,  is  much  to  be  preferred  to  Lowth's  {a  beauteous  crown  and 
a  f/lorious  diadem).  Of  the  versions  which  exchange  the  nouns  for  adjec- 
tives, the  most  felicitous  is  Luther's  [eine  liebliche  Krone  und  herrlivher 
Kranz).  Instead  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  the  Targum  has  the  Messiah  of 
Jehovah. 

6.  And  for  a  spirit  of  judgment  to  him  that  sitteth  in.  judr/ment,  and  for 
strength  to  them  that  turn  the  battle  to  the  gate.  This,  which  is  the  common 
English  Version,  coincides  with  that  of  the  latest  and  best  writers.  ^V. 
DSLI'Isn  may  either  be  explained  as  meaning  on  the  judgment-seat,  with 
Calvin  (super  tribunal),  or  in  judgment,  i.e.  for  the  purpose  of  judging, 
with  Clericus  (juris  dicundi  causa)  and  most  other  -wiiters.  In  illustration 
of  the  first  sense  may  be  cited  Ps.  ix.  5,  thou  sittest  on  the  throne  judging 
right;  in  illustration  of  the  other,  1  Sam.  xx.  24,  xxx.  24,  where  ^V.  ^P\ 
indicates  the  purpose  for  which,  or  the  object  with  respect  to  which,  one 
sits.  The  last  words  of  the  verse  are  applied  to  those  who  return  home 
safe  from  war  by  Symmachus,  the  Targum,  and  the  Vulgate  (revertentibus 
de  hello  ad  portam) ;  to  those  who  repel  the  battle  from  the  gate  by  the 
Peshito,  Clericus,  and  August! ;  but  by  all  the  later  writers  to  those  who 
drive  the  war  back  to  the  enemy's  own  gates,  or,  as  it  were,  carry  it  into 
his  own  country.  J.  D.  Michaelis  gives  to  gate  the  specific  sense  of  bound- 
ary, or  frontier,  which  is  wholly  unnecessary,  as  it  is  usual  to  mention 
towns,  if  not  their  gates,  in  such  connections.  (See,  for  example,  2  Sam. 
xi.  23 ;  2  Kings  xviii.  8.)  The  war  meant  is  therefore  wholly  defensive. 
The  two  great  requisites  of  civil  government  are  here  described  as  coming 
from  Jehovah.  Even  Gesenius  adverts  to  the  fact,  that  the  Spirit  of  this 
verse  is  not  a  mere  influence,  but  God  himself. 

7.  And  [yet)  these  also  (or  even  these)  through  trine  hare  erred,  and 
through  strong  drink  have  gone  astray.  Priest  and  prophet  have  erred 
through  strong  drink,  have  been  siralloired  up  of  nine,  have  been  led  astray 
by  strong  drink,  have  erred  in  vision,  have  iravered  in  judgment.  Having 
predicted  in  the  foregoing  verse  that  when  Ephraim  fell  Judah  should  con- 
tinue to  enjoy  the  protection  of  Jehovah,  the  Prophet  now  describes  even 
this  favoured  remnant  as  addicted  to  the  same  sins  which  had  hastened  the 
destruction  of  the  ten  tribes,  viz.,  sensual  indulgence,  and  the  spiritual  evils 
which  it  generates.  The  drunkenness  here  mentioned  is  taken  in  a  moral 
and  spiritual  sense  even  by  Cahnn  and  others,  who  understand  ver.  1  as 
relating  to  literal  intoxication  ;  but  this  mode  of  exposition  seems  entirely 
arbitrary.  All  that  is  necessary  is  to  suppose  the  moral  or  spiritual  eftects 
of  drunkenness  to  be  included.     Many  interpreters  suppose  the  Prophet  to 


Ver.  8.]  ISAIAH  XXVIII.  449 

revert  at  this  point  to  the  state  of  Judah  in  his  own  day.  Of  such  transi- 
tions there  are  numerous  examples ;  but  the  supposition  is  unnecessary 
here,  where  the  obvious  construction  of  the  passage,  as  continuous  in  point 
of  time,  yields  a  good  and  appropriate  sense.  The  meaning  then  is,  that 
the  Jews,  although  distinguished  from  the  ten  tribes  by  God's  sparing 
mercy,  should  nevertheless  imitate  them  in  their  sins.  There  is  great  pro- 
bability in  Henderson's  suggestion,  that  the  prophecy  refers  to  the  national 
deterioration  in  the  reign  of  Mauasseh.  The  D4  at  the  beginning  is  em- 
phatic, not  only  Ephraim,  but  also  these,  or  even  these.  Ewald  arbitrarily 
translates  H^K  here,  and  makes  the  verbs  indefinite  {taumclt  man).  The 
priest  and  prophet  are  named  as  the  leaders  of  the  people,  and  as  those 
who  were  peculiarly  bound  to  set  a  better  example.  The  reference  to  judg- 
ment in  the  last  clause  may  be  explained  either  on  the  ground  that  the 
priest  and  prophet  represent  the  rulers  of  the  people  in  general,  or  because 
the  priests  themselves  exercised  judicial  functions  in  certain  prescribed  cases 
(Deut.  xvii.  9,  xix.  17).  Junius  and  others  needlessly  take  in3  in  the 
general  sense  of  ruler.  Another  not  improbable  solution  is,  that  nv''7D 
does  not  mean  judgment  in  the  technical  sense,  but  more  generally  the 
declaration  of  the  will  of  God.  There  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  ground  for 
Gesenius's  explanation  of  the  word  as  meaning  judgment-seat.  Mam-er 
gives  the  same  sense,  and  explains  the  whole  phrase,  they  star/rjer  (or  reel) 
into  the  judgment-seat.  Most  of  the  late  interpreters,  instead  of  the  more 
general  sense  of  erring,  ivanderlng,  explain  HJ^  and  n;yri  as  specifically 
meaning  to  reel  or  stagger,  which  adds  to  the  vividness  of  the  description, 
but  does  not  seem  to  be  entirely  justified  by  usage.  Hendewerk  takes 
"^y^  as  an  abstract,  meaning  intoxication.  J.  D.  Michaelis  translates  it  beer. 
Hitzig  explains  T''^  as  meaning  in  the  act  of  drinking  ivine ;  but  most  other 
writers,  mth  more  probability,  regard  both  P  and  ^  as  here  denoting  the 
means  or  cause  of  the  intoxication.  Henderson's  version  of  "iy?33  [over- 
poicered),  leaves  out  of  view  the  obvious  allusion  to  literal  deglutition;  for, 
as  Gill  suggests,  they  swallowed  the  wine  down,  and  it  svrallowed  them  up. 
Here  again  Barnes  sees  his  favourite  image  of  a  maelstrom.  Maurer 
suggests,  as  a  possible  construction,  that  the  last  words  may  cohere  with 
the  first  of  the  next  verse,  and  1p3  have  the  meaning  of  the  Chaldee  and 
Syriac  pS^  :  they  go  out  of  the  judgment-seat  because  all  the  tables,  &c. 
But  inVii^  is  a  dining-table,  not  a  wTiting-desk.  Nor  is  there  any  such  im- 
provement in  the  sense  as  would  seem  to  justify  such  a  departure  from  the 
traditional  arrangement  of  the  text.  The  use  of  strong  drinks  was  expressly 
forbidden  to  the  priests  in  the  discharge  of  their  official  functions  (Lev.  x. 
9 ;  Ezek.  xliv.  21).  HNI  is  commonly  explained  as  a  participle  used  for 
an  abstract  noun,  seeing  or  seer  for  sight,  an  explanation  which  is  certainly 
favoured  by  the  analogous  use  of  H.tn  in  ver.  18.  It  is  possible,  however, 
that  n^"l2  may  mean  in  the  office,  character,  or  functions  of  a  seer,  as 
Junius  explains  it  (in  functione  videntis). 

8.  For  all  tables  are  full  of  vomit,  of  filth,  loithout  a  place  {i.  e.  a 
clean  place).  Grotius  understands  by  tables  the  tribunals,  and  by  filth  and 
vomit  the  injustice  practised  there,  which  he  says  was  likemse  called  sordes 
by  the  Latins.  How  arbitrary  such  expositions  must  be,  will  appear  from 
the  fact,  that  Vitringa  makes  the  tables  mean  the  schools  or  places  of  public 
instruction,  and  the  vomit  the  false  doctrine  there  taught  and  again  repro- 
duced to  the  injuiy  of  others.     The  only  natural  interpretation  is  that 

VOL.  I.  F  f 


450  ISAIAH  XXVIII.  [Ver.  9. 

■which  supposes  tables  to  denote  the  places  where  men  eat  aud  drink,  and 
the  other  terms  the  natural  though  revolting  consequences  of  excess. 
Cocceius,  who  takes  tables  in  its  proper  sense,  explains  the  filth  to  mean 
con-upt  or  unpiotitahlo  conversation  ;  but  this  is  a  most  unreasonable 
mixture  of  literal  and  figurative  exposition.  "Whether  the  intoxication  thus 
described  is  wholl}'  spiritual,  depends  of  course  upon  the  meaning  given  to 
the  preceding  verse.  Most  writers  suppose  HSV  to  be  governed  by  N*i?, 
and  resolve  the  phrase  into  an  adjective  construction  by  translating  it 
Jilthy  vomit.  Augusti  makes  the  first  word  the  qualifying  term,  and  renders 
it  vomited  filth.  As  the  words,  however,  are  distinct  in  origin,  the  best 
construction  is  that  which  makes  them  both  dependent  on  the  verb  :  full 
of  vomit,  full  of  filth.  There  is  no  more  need  of  supplying  a  preposition 
before  riNV  than  before  ^''\>.  The  introduction  of  the  copulative  and  is 
needless,  and  impairs  the  force  of  the  expression.  ^^3  is  properly  a  noun 
meaning /rtiVitre  or  defect,  but  is  constantly  used  as  a  negative  adverb  or  pre- 
position. The  sense  of  this  clause  is  correctly  though  diflusely  given  in 
the  English  Version  {so  that  there  is  no  place  clean).  Luther  gives  the 
sense,  but  with  a  change  of  form,  by  rendering  it  in  all  places.  So  too 
one  of  the  French  Versions  (tellement  que  tout  en  est  plein).  It  is  some- 
what remarkable  that  the  Septuagint  translation  of  this  verse  does  not 
exhibit  any  trace  of  the  original. 

9.  Whom  icill  lie  teach  knoivledge  ?  And  whom  will  he  make  to  under- 
stand doctrine  ?  Those  tveaned  from  the  milk  and  removed  from  the  breasts. 
The  Targum  makes  this  a  description  of  Israel  as  the  favoured  people  to 
whom  the  law  was  exclusively  given.  In  like  manner  some  of  the  older 
Christian  writers  understand  it  as  descriptive  of  the  persons  whom  Jehovah, 
or  the  Prophet  acting  in  his  name,  would  choose  as  proper  subjects  of 
instruction,  viz.,  simple  and  child-like  disciples,  who  as  neio-born,  babes 
desire  the  sincere  milk  of  the  ivord  (1  Pet.  ii.  2).  But  the  children  here 
described  are  weanlings,  not  sucklings,  and  on  this  hj-pothesis  the  weaning, 
which  is  so  particularly  mentioned,  would  have  no  significancy.  Besides, 
this  explanation  of  the  words  would  not  suit  the  context,  either  before  or 
after.  It  is  therefore  commonlj'  agreed,  that  the  last  clause  must  be  taken 
in  a  contemptuous  or  unfavourable  sense,  as  denoting  children  not  in 
malice  merely  but  in  understanding  (1  Cor.  xiv.  20).  On  this  assumption 
some  have  explained  the  verse  as  meaning,  that  the  priest  and  the  prophet, 
mentioned  in  ver.  7,  were  utterly  unfit  to  teach  the  people,  being  them- 
selves mere  children  in  knowledge  and  in  understanding.  This  explanation 
supposes  the  singular  verbs  of  the  first  clause,  and  the  plural  adjectives  of 
the  second,  to  refer  to  the  same  persons.  Another  interpretation  makes 
the  words  descriptive  not  of  the  teachers  but  the  taught,  as  being  no  more 
fit  to  receive  instruction  than  a  child  just  weaned.  J.  D.  Michaolis  applies 
the  last  clause  not  to  their  incapacity  but  to  their  unwillingness  to  be  in- 
structed, as  being  long  since  weaned  and  now  too  old  to  return  to  the 
breast.  This  ingenious  explanation  has  the  advantage  of  taking  P''P^V.  in 
its  usual  sense  oiold,  whereas  all  others  give  it  one  derived  from  PDJJ  to  re- 
move. But  the  comparative  meaning,  which  it  puts  upon  the  preposition 
following,  is  excluded  by  its  obvious  use  in  the  foregoing  phrase  in  its 
proper  local  scnse'of//w?i.  A  new  turn  was  given  to  the  exposition  of  the 
verse  by  Lowth,  who,  adopting  an  obscure  suggestion  of  Jerome,  explains 
it  as  the  language  not  of  the  Prophet  but  of  the  wicked  men  before  de- 
scribed, expressing  their  indignation  and  contempt  at  the  Prophet's  under- 
taking to  instruct  them  as  if  they  were  mere  childi-en.     "Whom  does  he 


Ver.  10.]  ISAIAH  XXVIII.  451^ 

undertalce  to  teach  ?  and  whom  would  he  make  to  understand  his  doctrine  ? 
Children  weaned  from  the  milk  and  removed  from  the  breast  ?  This  inter- 
pretation has  in  substance  been  adopted  by  all  later  writers,  as  affording  a 
good  sense  and  one  admirably  suited  both  to  the  foregoing  and  the  follow- 
ing context.  It  seems  to  be  liable  to  only  two  objections :  first,  that  it 
gratuitously  gives  the  passage  a  dramatic  form  b}^  supposing  a  new  speaker 
to  be  introduced  without  any  intimation  in  the  text ;  and  then,  that  it 
arbitrarily  continues  the  interrogation  through  the  sentence.  The  last 
objection  may  be  obviated  by  adopting  Henderson's  modified  construction, 
which  supposes  them  to  ask  not  whom  he  would  but  whom  he  oicght  to 
teach,  and  then  to  answer,  little  children  just  weaned  from  the  breast,  not 
men  of  mature  age  and  equal  to  himself.  The  other  objection,  being 
wholly  negative,  must  yield  of  course  to  the  positive  arguments  in  favour 
of  an  exposition  which  is  otherwise  coherent,  satisfactory,  and  suited  to 
the  context.  Rosenmiiller  seems  indeed  to  think  that  the  space  between 
this  verse  and  that  before  it  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  denotes  a  change 
of  subject ;  but  these  mechanical  arrangements  of  the  text  can  have  no 
authoritative  influence  upon  its  exposition.  The  verbs  in  the  first  clause 
may  either  be  indefinitely  construed  or  referred  to  the  Prophet,  without  a 
material  change  of  meaning.  nyiDti'  properly  denotes  something  heard, 
and  here  means  that  which  the  Prophet  heard  from  God  and  the  people 
from  the  Prophet ;  in  other  words,  divine  revelation,  whether  general  or 
special.  There  are  few  examples  of  a  more  exact  translation  than  the 
A^ulgate  version  of  this  verse,  in  which  the  very  form  of  the  original  is 
happily  retained,  not  excepting  the  etymological  import  of  the  word  nj^-10^. 
So  rigid  is  the  version,  that  Montanus  has  retained  it  in  his  owti  unchanged. 
Quern  docebit  scientiam  f  et  quern  intelUr/ere  faciei  auditum  ?  ahlactatos  a 
Jade,  avcdsos  ah  uherihus. 

10.  For  {it  is)  rule  upon  rule,  rule  upon  rule,  line  upon  line,  line  upon 
line,  a  little  here,  a  little  there.  The  interpretation  of  this  verse  varies  of 
com-se  with  that  of  the  one  before  it.  Those  who  understand  ver.  9  as 
descriptive  of  God's  favour  to  the  Jews,  explain  this  in  like  manner  as 
relating  to  the  abundance  of  the  revelations  made  to  them,  including 
rules  and  counsels  suited  to  every  emergency  of  life.  Henderson's  remark, 
that  the  words  are  often  preposterously  quoted  in  application  to  the  abun- 
dant possession  of  religious  privileges,  rests  of  course  on  the  assumption 
that  his  owTi  interpretation  of  ver.  9  is  certainly  the  true  one.  But  this  is 
far  from  being  so  clear  as  to  justify  the  branding  of  an  opposite  opinion 
with  absurdity.  Those  who  apply  ver.  9  to  the  incapacity  of  the  j)eople 
for  high  attainments  in  spiritual  knowledge,  regard  ver.  10  as  a  description 
of  the  elementary  methods  which  were  necessary  for  them.  Those  who 
apply  ver.  9  to  the  incapacity  of  the  religious  teachers  of  the  Jews,  explain 
ver.  10  as  a  description  of  their  puerile  method  of  instruction.  The 
words  are  thus  understood  by  Vitringa  and  applied  to  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  in  the  time  of  Christ.  But  as  all  the  latest  writers  make  ver.  9 
the  language  of  the  Jews  themselves,  complaining  of  the  Prophet's  per- 
petual reproofs  and  teachings,  they  are  equally  agreed  in  making  ver.  10 
a  direct  continuation  of  the  same  complaint.  Aben  Ezra  explains  IV?  "IV 
as  meaning  rule  after  rule  or  rule  [joined)  to  rule.  Equally  good 
is  the  construction  in  the  English  Version  {precept  upon  j^recept)  except 
that  the  word  precept  is  too  long  to  represent  the  chosen  monosyllables 
of  the  original.  The  same  objection  may  be  made  to  Gesenius's  imitation 
of  the  paronomasia  (Gebot  auf  Gebot,  Verbot  auf  Verbot),  which  is  much 


452  ISAIAH  XX  VIII.  [ Ver.  1 1 ,  1 2. 

inferior  to  that  of  Ewald  (Satz  zu  Satz,  Schnur  zu  Schnur).  Paulas,  Gese- 
nius,  Maiirer,  Hitzig,  and  Ewaltl,  understand  tbis  peculiar  clause  as  the 
people's  scoffing  imitation  of  the  Prophet's  manner  ;  Koppc,  Eicldiorn, 
Umbreit,  and  Knobcl,  as  the  Prophet's  own  derisive  imitation  of  Iheir 
drunken  talk.  Koppe  oven  goes  so  far  as  to  imagine  that  IV  and  1p  are 
here  intentionally  given  as  half-formed  words,  if  not  as  inarticulate  un- 
meaning sounds.  But  1p  is  in  common  use,  and  IV  occurs  in  the  sense  of 
rule  or  jtrecept  in  Hos.  v.  11.  The  Peshito  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  treat  these 
words  as  cognate  forms  and  synonymes  of  HKIV  and  N"'|5  in  ver.  8,  and  tran- 
slate accordingly,  vomit  upon  vomit,  Jilth  upon  filth.  Michaelis,  moreover, 
gives  "i^y.t  the  sense  of  spot  or  stain.  Both  dt"  and  "i*J?T  are  referred  by  some 
to  time,  and  by  others  to  quantity  or  space  ;  but  the  simplest  and  best  ex- 
planation seems  to  be  the  one  given  in  the  English  Version  [here  a  little, 
there  a  liltle),  as  expressive  of  minuteness  and  perpetual  repetition.  Gese- 
nius  understands  this  verse  as  having  reference  to  the  constant  additions 
to  the  law  of  Moses  in  Isaiah's  time,  the  design  of  which  interpretation  is 
to  fortify  the  doctrine  that  the  Pentateuch,  as  we  now  have  it,  is  long  pos- 
terior to  the  days  of  Moses.  Bosenmiiller,  Hitzig,  and  Knobel,  all  admit 
that  the  allusion  is  not  to  the  written  law,  but  to  the  oral  admonitions 
of  the  Prophets.  The  Targum  contains  a  diffuse  paraphrase  of  this  verse, 
in  which  the  principal  words  are  retained,  but  so  combined  with  others 
as  to  make  the  whole  relate  to  the  captivity  of  Israel,  as  the  consequence 
of  his  despising  the  appointed  place  of  worship  and  practising  idolatry. 

11.  For  with  stammering  lips  and  uith  einother  to7u/ue  irill  he  speak  unto 
this  people.  As  HSB'  "'jy'?  may  denote  cither  foreign  or  sco/fing  speech  (the 
former  being  usually  descril)ed  in  the  Old  Testament  as  stammering),  some 
suppose  a  double  allusion  here,  to  wit,  that  as  they  had  mocked  at  the 
divine  instructions  by  their  stammering  speech,  so  he  would  speak  to  them 
in  turn  by  the  stammering  lips  of  foreigners  in  another  language  than  their 
own.  This,  though  by  no  means  an  obvious  construction  in  itself,  is  pre- 
ferred by  the  latest  writers  and  countenanced  by  several  analogous  expres- 
sions in  the  subsequent  context.  Ewald  understands  by  the  stammering 
speech  of  this  verse  the  inarticulate  language  of  the  thunder,  which  is  very 
unnatural.  Of  the  older  writers  some  explain  this  verse  as  descriptive  of 
God's  tenderness  and  condescension  in  accommodating  his  instructions  to 
the  people's  capacitj'  as  nurses  deal  with  children.  Others  understand 
it  to  mean  that  through  their  own  perverseness  those  instructions  had 
been  rendered  unintelligible  and  of  course  improfitablc,  so  that  their  divine 
teacher  had  become  as  it  were  a  barbarian  to  them. 

12.  MHio  said  to  thevi.  This  is  rest,  give  rest  to  the  iccary,  and  this  is  quiet, 
but  they  uould  not  hear.  The  judgments  threatened  in  the  foregoing  verse 
were  the  more  evident,  just  because  he  who  threatened  them  had  warned 
the  people,  and  pointed  out  to  them  the  only  way  to  happiness,  ^?f'^? 
should  not  be  taken  in  the  rare  and  doubtful  sense  because,  but  in  its 
proper  sense  as  a  relative  pronoun.  This  construction,  far  from  being 
intolerably  harsh  (Henderson),  is  the  only  natural  and  simple  one,  as  well 
as  the  only  one  entirely  justified  by  usage.  The  pronoun  may  either  be 
connected  with  DD''?.X  in  the  sense  of  to  tchom  (for  v.hich  there  is  no  other 
Hebrew  expression),  or  referred  to  Jehovah  as  the  subject  of  the  following 
verb.  Who  was  it  that  should  speak  to  them  with  another  tongue  ?  He 
who  had  so  often  said  to  them,  Sec.  Although  admissible,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  take  nn-13p  in  the  local  sense  of  resting-place  (Ewald).  The  sense 
is  not,  that  the  true  way  to  rest  is  to  give  rest  to  the  weary- ;  the  latter  ex- 


Vek.  13-15.J  JSAIAR  XXVIII.  453 

pression  is  a  kind  of  parenthesis,  as  if  he  had  said,  This  is  the  trae  rest, 
let  the  weary  enjoy  it.  By  this  we  are  therefore  to  understand,  not  com- 
passion and  kindness  to  the  suffering,  but  obedience  to  the  will  of  God  in 
general.  This  is  the  true  rest  which  I  alone  can  give,  and  the  way  to 
which  I  have  clearly  marked  out.  Best  is  not  quiet  submission  to  the 
yoke  of  the  Assyrians  (Hitzig),  but  peace,  tranquillity.  To  give  rent  to  the 
weari/  does  not  mean  to  cease  from  warlike  preparations,  or  to  relieve  the 
people  from  excessive  burdens,  whether  of  a  civil  or  rehgious  kind,  but 
simply  to  reduce  to  practice  the  lesson  which  God  had  taught  them.  This 
is  the  way  to  peace,  let  those  who  wish  it  walk  therein.  In  the  last  clause, 
nould  is  not  a  mere  auxihary,  but  an  independent  and  emphatic  verb,  tJiey 
uere  not  willing.  The  form  i^-I^X  (from  the  root  n^X),  though  resembling 
the  Ai-abic  analog}^,  is  not  a  proof  of  recent  date,  but  rather  of  the  fact, 
that  some  forms,  which  are  prevalent  in  the  cognate  dialects,  were  known, 
if  not  common,  in  the  early  periods  of  Hebrew  composition. 

13.  And  the  word  of  Jehovah  teas  to  them  rule  upon  rule,  rule  upon  rule ; 
line  upon  line,  line  upon  line  ;  a  little  here,  a  little  there  ;  that  they  might  go, 
and  fall  backwards,  and  be  broken,  and  be  snared,  and  be  taken.  The  law 
was  given  that  sin  might  abound.  The  only  effect  of  the  minute  instruc- 
tions, which  they  found  so  irksome,  was  to  aggravate  their  guilt  and  con- 
demnation. The  terms  of  the  first  clause  are  repeated  from  ver.  10,  and 
have  of  course  the  same  meaning  in  both  places.  The  Vav  at  the  beginning 
of  the  verse  is  not  conversive,  as  the  verbs  of  the  preceding  verse  relate  to 
past  time.  There  is  neither  necessity  nor  reason  for  translating  the  par- 
ticle but,  so  that,  or  anything  but  and,  as  it  introduces  a  direct  continua- 
tion of  the  foregoing  description.  •'53?.'!  does  not  simply  qualify  the  following 
verbs  (go  on,  or  continue  to  fall  backwards),  but  expresses  a  distinct  act. 
•17^3  includes  the  two  ideas  of  stumbling  and  falling.  Some  give  to  -IIS^I 
the  more  specific  sense,  and  break  their  limbs.  IVP?  according  to  its  etymo- 
logy denotes  design  {in  order  that),  but  may  here  be  used  simply  to  express 
an  actual  result  {so  that),  unless  we  refer  it,  in  its  strict  sense,  to  the 
righteous  purpose  or  design  of  God's  judicial  providence. 

14.  Therefore  (because  your  advantages  have  only  made  you  more 
rebellious)  hear  the  word  of  Jehovah,  ye  scornful  men  (literally  men  of  scorn, 
i.  e.  despisers  of  the  truth),  the  rulers  of  this  people  which  is  in  Jerusalem 
(or  ye  rulers  of  this  people  who  are  in  Jerusalem).  The  "i^^?  may  refer 
grammatically  either  to  Q^n  or  to  ''^.^^.  This  people,  here  as  elsewhere, 
may  be  an  expression  of  displeasure  and  contempt.  Jerusalem  is  mentioned 
as  the  seat  of  government  and  source  of  influence.  The  whole  verse  invites 
attention  to  the  solemn  warning  which  follows. 

15.  Because  ye  have  said  (in  thought  or  deed,  if  not  in  word)  we  have 
made  a  covenant  ivith  death,  and  with  hell  (the  grave,  or  the  unseen  world) 
have  formed  a  league  ;  the  overflowing  scourge,  ivhen  it  passes  through,  shall 
not  come  upon  m,  for  we  have  made  falsehood  our  refuge,  and  in  fraud 
we  have  hid  ourselves.  The  meaning  evidently  is,  that  if  their  actions 
were  translated  into  words,  this  w^ould  be  their  import.  There  is  no 
need,  therefore,  of  throwing  the  words  3T3  and  "ipEJ*  into  a  parenthesis 
(J.  D.  Michaelis)  as  the  Prophet's  comment  on  the  scoffer's  boast.  ?1i<B' 
is  here  nothing  more  than  a  poetical  equivalent  to  HID.  The  textual  read- 
ing ^''ly  is  probably  an  old  cognate  form  and  synonyme  of  ^y^,  which  is  given 
in  the  margin.  The  mixed  metaphor  of  an  overflowing  scourge  combines 
two  natural  and  common  figures  for  severe  calamity.     Some  interpreters 


454  ISAIAH  XXVIII.  [Vkr.  10. 

apologise  for  the  rhetorical  defect  of  the  expression  on  the  ground  that 
Hebrew  ears  were  not  as  delicate  as  ours.  Barnes  throws  the  blame  upon 
the  English  version,  and  explains  the  Hebrew  word  to  mean  calamity,  but 
in  ver.  18  gives  the  meaning  scourf/e,  and  says  that  three  metaphors  are 
there  combined,  which  makes  it  less  incredible  that  two  ai-e  blended  here, 
n.tn  is  properly  a  participle  [seeing)  often  used  as  a  noun  to  denote  a  seer  or 
prophet.  Here  the  connection  seems  distinctly  to  require  the  sense  of 
league  or  covenant.  That  there  is  no  error  in  the  text,  may  be  inferred 
from  the  substitution  of  the  cognate  form  riltn  in  ver.  18.  Hitzig  accounts 
for  the  transfer  of  meanings  by  the  supposition  that  in  making  treaties  it 
was  usual  to  consult  the  seer  or  prophet.  Ewald  supposes  an  allusion  to 
the  practice  of  necromantic  art  or  divination  as  a  safeguard  against  death,  and 
translates  the  word  orakel.  The  more  common  explanation  of  the  usage 
traces  it  to  the  idea  of  an  interview  or  meeting  and  the  act  of  looking  one 
another  in  the  face,  from  which  the  transition  is  by  no  means  difficult  to 
that  of  mutual  understanding  or  agreement.  (Calvin:  visionis  nomine 
significat  id  quod  vulgo  dicimus  avoir  intelligence.)  The  marginal  reading 
"isy  ■nas  probably  intended  to  assimilate  the  phrase  to  that  employed  in 
ver.  18,  but  without  necessity,  since  either  tense  might  be  used  in  this 
connection  to  express  contingency.  As  the  other  variations  ip''^  and  tSIK*, 
HTH  and  riTin)  shew  that  the  two  verses  were  not  meant  to  be  identical  in 
form,  the  reading  in  the  text  (""^V)  is  probabl}'  the  true  one.  *<13,  when 
construed  directly  with  the  noun,  means  to  come  vpun,  in  the  sense  of 
attacking  or  invading.  The  falsehood  mentioned  in  the  last  clause  is  not  a 
false  profession  of  idolatry  in  order  to  conciliate  the  enemy  (Grotius),  nor 
idols,  nor  false  prophets,  but  falsehood  or  unfaithfulness  to  God,  i.e.  wicked- 
ness in  general,  perhaps  with  an  allusion  to  the  falsity  or  treacherous 
nature  of  the  hopes  built  upon  it.  The  translation  under  falsehood,  which 
is  given  in  the  English  Bible  and  in  some  other  versions,  is  neither  justi- 
fied by  usage  nor  required  by  the  connection.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
reflexive  version,  ive  have  hid  ourselves,  is  much  more  expressive  than  the 
simple  passive. 

16.  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  Behold  I  lay  in  Zion  a  stone, 
a  stone  of  j)roof,  a  cornerstone  of  value,  of  a  firm  foundation  ;  the  believer 
xvill  not  he  in  haste.  To  the  words  of  the  scofiers  are  now  opposed  the 
words  of  God  himself.  Because  you  say  thus  and  thus,  therefore  the  Lord 
says  in  reply  what  follows.  You  trust  for  safety  in  your  own  delusions  ;  on 
the  contrary,  I  lay  a  sure  foundation,  and  no  other  can  be  laid.  This  foun- 
dation is  neither  the  temple  (Ewald),  nor  the  law  (Umbreit),  nor  Zion  itself 
(Hitzig),  norHezekiah  (Gesenius),  but  the  Messiah,  to  whom  it  is  repeatedly 
and  explicitly  applied  in  the  New  Testament  (Rom.  ix.  33,  x.  11  ;  1  Peter 
ii.  G).  The  same  application  of  the  text  is  made  by  Jarchi,  and  according 
to  Raymund  Martini  (in  his  Pugio  Fidei)  by  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  al- 
though the  word  Messiah  is  now  wanting  in  the  Chaldee  text.  The  objection, 
that  the  stone  here  mentioned  was  already  laid,  has  no  weight,  as  the  whole 
theocracy  existed  with  a  view  to  the  coming  of  Messiah.  The  reference  of 
the  words  to  Hezckiah  is  an  old  one,  as  Thcodoret  pronounces  it  an  instance 
of  extreme  folly  (uvola;  ioy^arrii).  Hitzig  and  Knobel,  in  order  to  make 
Zion  itself  the  sure  foundation,  make  the  particle  a  beth  essenliir,  as  if  he 
had  said.  You  have  i)i  Xion  [i.  e.  Zion  is  to  you)  a  sure  foundation.  All 
other  writers  seem  to  give  the  3  its  proper  local  sense.  The  phrase  literally 
rendered  stone  of  proof  admits  of  two  interpretations.  Calvin  understands 
by  it  a  stone  which  was  to  be  the  test  or  standard  of  comparison  for  others ; 


Ver.  17,  18.]  ISAIAH  A^XVIII.  455 

but  the  common  explanation  is  more  natural,  which  makes  it  mean  a  stone 
that  has  itself  been  proved  or  tried  and  found  sufficient.  A  kindred  idea  is 
expressed  by  the  phrase  "ID"IQ  "'^■1^,  a  cognate  noun  and  participle,  Htei-ally 
meaning  n  founded  foundation,  i.  e.  one  entirely  firm  and  safe.  The  pecu- 
liar form  of  the  original,  arising  from  the  repetition  of  the  construct  state, 
has  been  retained  in  the  translation  above  given.  There  is  no  need  of  sup- 
posing, with  Kimchi  and  others,  that  rilp''  is  an  absolute  form  in  apposition 
with  what  follows.  The  writer's  purpose  seems  to  have  been  to  unite  the 
members  of  the  sentence  in  construction  by  a  very  intimate  and  close  arti- 
culation. PCXO  may  either  be  referred  specifically  to  the  corner-stone  or 
taken  in  the  general  sense  of  trusting  or  believing,  sc,  God.  The  objec- 
tion to  the  former  that  the  prophets  never  exhort  men  to  trust  in  men  or 
mere  localities,  is  valid  as  an  argument  against  the  reference  to  Hezekiah, 
or  the  temple,  or  mount  Zion,  but  not  against  the  reference  to  the  Messiah, 
who  is  constantly  presented  as  an  object  of  faith,  and  a  ground  of  trust. 
Will  not  he  in  haste,  i.  e.  will  not  be  impatient,  but  will  trust  the  promise, 
even  though  its  execution  be  delayed.  This  suits  the  connection  better 
than  the  sense  preferred  by  the  modern  German  writers,  luill  not  flee,  or 
have  occasion  to  flee,  in  alarm  or  despair.  The  Septuagint  version  adopted 
in  the  New  Testament  {sludl  not  be  ashamed),  agrees  essentially  with  that 
first  given,  though  it  makes  more  prominent  the  fact  that  the  believer's 
hopes  shall  not  be  disappointed.  If  it  be  true,  as  Gesenius  thinks  probable, 
that  the  Hebrew  verb,  like  a  kindred  one  in  Arabic,  not  only  meant  to 
hasten  but  to  be  ashamed,  the  Septuagint  version  is  fully  justified,  and  the 
authority  of  the  New  Testament  should  be  regarded  as  decisive  in  favour 
of  that  meaning  here.  But  as  it  cannot  be  traced  in  Hebrew  usage,  it  is 
better  to  regard  the  Greek  as  paraphrasing  rather  than  translating  the 
original  expression.  At  all  events,  there  is  no  need  of  reading  K'''^"'  with 
Grotius,  Houbigant,  and  Lowth.  The  force  of  the  figui'es  in  this  verse  is 
much  enhanced  by  the  statements  of  modern  travellers  in  relation  to  the 
immense  stones  still  remaining  at  the  foundation  of  ancient  walls.  (See 
particularly  Robinson's  Palestine,  i.  343,  351,  422. 

17.  And  I  loill  place  judgment  for  a  line  and  justice  for  a  plummet,  and 
hail  shall  siveejJ  away  the  refuge  of  falsehood,  and  the  hidiiig-place  tvaters 
shall  overfloiu.  The  meaning  of  the  first  clause  is,  that  God  would  deal  with 
them  in  strict  justice ;  he  Avould  make  justice  the  rule  of  his  proceedings, 
as  the  builder  regulates  his  work  by  the  line  and  plummet.  The  English 
Version  seems  to  make  judgment  or  justice  not  the  measure  but  the 
thing  to  be  measured.  The  verb  D-l'SJ'  with  the  preposition  7  means  to 
place  a  thing  in  a  certain  situation,  or  to  apply  it  to  a  certain  use.  (See 
chap.  xiv.  23.)  Hail  and  rain  are  here  used,  as  in  ver.  2  above,  to  denote 
the  divine  visitations.  The  refuge  and  the  hiding-place  are  those  of  which 
the  scornful  men  had  boasted  in  ver.  15.  To  their  confident  assurance 
of  safety  God  opposes,  first,  the  only  sure  foundation  which  himself  had 
laid,  and  then  the  utter  destruction  which  was  coming  on  their  own  chosen 
objects  of  reliance.  Hitzig  thinks  that  "V'^  must  have  dropped  out  after 
*iriD,  as  if  there  were  no  examples  of  even  greater  variation  in  the  repetitions 
of  the  prophets.  The  truth  is,  that  slavish  iteration  of  precisely  the  same 
words  is  rather  the  exception  than  the  rule. 

18.  And  your  covenant  with  death  shall  he  annulled,  and  your  league  with 
hell  shall  not  stand,  and  the  overflowing  scourge-~for  it  shall  jmss  through, 
and  ye  shall  he  for  it  to  trample  on.  "IS3  seems  to  be  here  used  in  its 
primary  sense  of  covering,   or   perhaps  more   specifically  smearing  over, 


466  ISAIAH  XXVIII.  [Ver.  19-21. 

BO  as  to  conceal  if  not  to  obliterate,  applied  in  this  case  to  a  writing, 
the  image  in  the  mind  of  the  Prophet  being  probably  that  of  a  waxen  tablet, 
in  which  the  writing  is  erased  by  spreading  out  and  smoothing  the  wax  with 
the  stylus.  In  the  last  clause,  the  construction  seems  to  be  interrupted. 
This  supposition  at  least  enables  us  to  take  both  the  "3  and  the  1  in  their 
natural  and  proper  sense.  Supposing  the  construction  of  the  clause  to  be 
complete,  it  may  be  explained  as  in  the  English  Version,  which  makes  both 
the  words  in  question  particles  of  time  meaning  lolien  and  then.  DCID  is 
properly  a  place  or  object  to  be  trodden  down  or  trampled  on.  (See  chap. 
V.  5.)  The  construction  above  given  is  the  one  proposed  by  Henderson, 
except  that  he  has  him  instead  of  it,  in  order  to  avoid  the  application  of  the 
words  to  the  scourge.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  idea  of  a  human 
invader  was  before  the  Prophet's  mind  ;  but  the  mere  rhetorical  incongruity 
is  not  at  all  at  variance  with  the  Prophet's  manner,  and  is  the  less  to  be 
dissembled  or  denied,  because  the  scourge  will  still  be  described  as  overjiow- 
ing.  The  attempt  to  reconcile  the  language  with  the  artificial  rules  of 
composition  is  in  this  case  rendered  hopeless  by  the  combination  of  expres- 
sions which  cannot  be  strictly  applied  to  the  same  subject.  An  ai*my 
might  trample,  but  it  couldnot^literally  overflow  ;  a  stream  might  overflow, 
but  it  could  not  literally  trample  down.  The  time  perhaps  is  coming 
when,  even  as  a  matter  of  taste,  the  strength  and  vividness  of  such  mixed 
metaphors  will  be  considered  as  outweighing  their  inaccuracy  in  relation  to 
an  arbitrary  standard  of  correctness  or  propriety. 

19.  As  soon  (or  as  often)  as  it  passes  through,  it  shall  take  you  (or  carry 
you  away)  ;  for  in  the  morning,  in  the  morning,  (i.  e.  every  morning),  it 
shall  pass  through,  in  the  day  and  in  the  night,  and  only  vexation  (ox  dis- 
tress) shall  be  the  understanding  of  the  thing  heard.  The  primary  meaning 
of  the  noun  ''T  is  sufficiency  ;  but  the  phrase  HD  is  used  in  reference  to 
time,  both  in  the  sense  of  as  soon  and  as  often  as.  The  meaning  may  be 
that  the  threatened  visitation  shall  come  soon  and  be  frequently  repeated. 
There  are  three  interpretations  of  the  last  clause,  one  of  which  supposes  it 
to  mean,  that  the  mere  report  of  the  approaching  scourge  should  fill  them 
with  distress ;  another,  that  the  efi'ect  of  the  report  should  be  unmixed 
distress ;  a  third,  that  nothing  but  a  painful  experience  would  enable  them 
to  understand  the  lesson  which  the  Prophet  was  commissioned  to  teach 
them.  nyiDtJ*  meaning  simply  what  is  heard,  may  of  course  denote  either 
rumour  or  revelation.  The  latter  seems  to  be  the  meaning  in  ver.  9,  where 
the  noun  stands  connected  with  the  same  verb  as  here.  Whether  this 
verb  means  simply  to  perceive  or  hear,  may  be  considered  doubtful ;  if  not, 
the  preference  is  due  to  the  third  interpretation  above  given,  viz.,  that 
nothing  but  distress  or  sufl"ering  could  make  them  understand  or  even 
attend  to  the  message  from  Jehovah. 

20.  For  the  bed  is  too  short  to  stretch  ones  self,  and  the  covering  too 
narrow  to  wrap  one's  self.  This  is  probabl}'  a  proverbial  description  of 
a  perplexed  and  comfortless  condition.  Jerome  absurdly  makes  the  verse 
a  description  of  idolatry  considered  as  a  spiritual  adultery.  The  2  before 
the  last  infinitive  may  be  a  particle  of  time,  meaning  uhen  one  would  wrap 
himself  in  it,  which  is  the  explanation  given  by  Cocceius.  The  connection 
with  the  foregoing  verse  is  this  :  5'ou  cannot  fully  understand  the  lessons 
which  I  teach  you  now  until  your  bed  becomes  too  short,  &c. 

21.  For  like  mount  Perazim  shall  Jehovah  rise  up,  like  the  valley  in 
Gibeon  shall  he  rage,  to  do  his  work,  his  strange  xoork,  and  to  perform  his 
task,  his  strange  task.     Into  such  a  condition  as  that  just  described  they 


Ver.  22,  23.]  ISAIAH  XXVI 11.  457 

shall  be  brought,  for  some  of  the  most  fearful  scenes  of  ancient  history  are 
yet  to  be  repeated.  Interpreters  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  precise  events 
referred  to  in  the  first  clause.  The  common  opinion  is,  that  it  alludes  to  the 
slaughter  of  the  Philistines,  described  in  2  Sam.  v.  18-25,  and  1  Chron. 
xiv.  9-16,  in  the  latter  of  which  places  Giheon  is  substituted  for  Geba. 
The  valley  meant  will  then  be  the  valley  of  llephaim.  Ewald,  on  the 
contraiy,  applies  the  clause  to  the  slaughter  of  the  Canaanites  by  Joshua, 
when  the  sun  stood  still  on  Gibeon,  and  the  moon  in  the  valley  of  Ajalon 
(Joshua  X.  7-15).  Still  another  hypothesis  is  that  of  Hendewerk,  who 
applies  the  first  part  of  the  clause  to  the  breach  of  Uzzah  (njy  'f*'!?)  described 
in  2  Sam.  vi.  6-8,  and  the  last  to  the  slaughter  of  Israel  in  the  valley  of 
Achor  (Joshua  vii.  1-26).  The  only  argument  in  favour  of  this  forced  inter- 
pretation is,  that  these  were  cases  in  which  God  took  vengeance,  not  of 
strangers  merely,  but  of  his  own  people.  But  as  there  is  no  mention  of  a 
mountain  in  the  case  of  Uzzah,  nor  of  Gibeon  in  that  of  Achan,  nor  of  Perez 
or  Perazim  in  that  of  Joshua,  neither  Hendewerk's  hypothesis  nor  Ewald's 
is  so  probable  as  that  of  Gesenius  and  most  other  writers,  which  refers  the 
whole  clause  to  the  double  slaughter  of  the  Philistines  by  David.  That 
these  were  foreigners  and  heathen,  only  adds  to  the  force  of  the  threatening, 
by  making  it  to  mean  that  as  God  had  dwelt  with  these  in  former  times,  he 
was  now  about  to  deal  with  the  unbelieving  and  unfaithful  sons  of  Israel. 
It  is  indeed  not  only  implied  but  expressed,  that  he  intended  to  depart 
from  his  usual  mode  of  ti'eating  them,  in  which  sense  the  judgments  here 
denounced  are  called  stranr/e  works,  i.  e.  foreign  from  the  ordinary  course  of 
divine  providence.  The  English  word  strange  is  here  the  only  satisfactory 
equivalent  to  the  two  Hebrew  adjectives  IT  and  '"'J"'?^.  The  idea  that  pun- 
ishment is  God's  strange  work  because  at  variance  with  his  goodness,  is  not 
only  less  appropriate  in  this  connection,  but  inconsistent  with  the  tenor  of 
Scripture,  which  describes  his  vindicatory  justice  as  an  essential  attribute  of 
his  natm-e.  The  unusual  collocation  of  the  words  IT  and  i^P??  has  led  some 
to  explain  them  as  the  predicates  of  short  parenthetical  propositions  (strange 
will  he  his  work,  &c.).  But  most  interpreters,  with  greater  probabihty, 
suppose  the  adjectives  to  be  prefixed  for  the  sake  of  emphasis.  Like  mount 
Perazim  is  a  common  idiomatic  abbreviation  of  the  phi'ase  as  in  (or  at) 
mount  Perazim. 

22.  And  now  scoff  not,  lest  your  hands  he  strong  ;  for  a  consumption 
and  decree  (or  even  a  decreed  consumption)  I  have  heard  from  the  Lord 
Jehovah  of  hosts,  against  (or  upon)  the  whole  earth.  Some  versions  retain 
the  reflexive  form  of  the  tirst  verb  ;  others  make  it  a  frequentative  ;  but  it 
seems  to  be  simply  intensive  or  emphatic.  Bands,  i.  e.  bonds  or  chains,  is 
a  common  figure  for  afilictions  and  especially  for  penal  sufi"erings.  To 
strengthen  these  bands  is  to  aggravate  the  suffering.  The  last  clause 
represents  the  threatened  judgments  as  inevitable,  because  determined  and 
revealed  by  God  himself.  The  form  of  expression  is  partly  borrowed  from 
chap.  X.  23. 

23.  Give  ear  and  hear  my  voice  ;  hearken  and  hear  my  speech.  This 
formula  invites  attention  to  what  follows  as  a  new  view  of  the  subject. 
The  remainder  of  the  chapter  contains  an  extended  illustration  drawn  from 
the  processes  of  agi'iculture.  Interpreters,  although  agreed  as  to  the  import 
of  the  figures,  are  divided  with  respect  to  their  design  and  application. 
Some  regard  the  passage  as  intended  to  illustrate,  in  a  general  way,  the 
wisdom  of  the  divine  dispensations.  Others  refer  it  most  specifically  to  the 
delay  of  judgment  on  the  sinner,  and  conceive  the  doctrine  of  the  passage  to 


458  ISAIAH  XXVIII.  [Ver.  24,  25. 

be  this,  that  although  God  is  not  always  punishing,  any  more  than  the 
husbandman  is  always  ploughing  or  always  threshing,  ho  will  punish  at 
last.  A  third  interpretation  makes  the  prominent  idea  to  be  this,  that 
although  God  chastises  his  own  people,  his  ultimate  design  is  not  to 
destroy  but  to  purify  and  save  them.  To  these  must  be  added,  as  a  new 
hypothesis,  the  one  maintained  by  Hitzig  and  Ewald,  who  reject  entirely 
the  application  of  the  passage  to  God's  providential  dealings,  and  apply  it 
to  the  conduct  of  men,  assuming  that  the  Prophet's  purpose  was  to  hold 
up  the  proceedings  of  the  husbandman  as  an  example  to  the  scofiicrs  whom 
he  is  addressing.  As  the  farmer  does  not  always  plough  or  always  thresh, 
nor  thresh  all  grains  alike,  but  has  a  time  for  either  process  and  a  method 
for  each  case,  so  should  you  cease  now  from  scoffing  and  receive  instruc- 
tion. To  this  explanation  it  may  be  objected,  first,  that  the  comparison 
contained  in  the  passage  does  not  realh'  illustrate  the  expediency  of  the 
course  proposed ;  and  secondly,  that  even  if  it  did,  the  illustration  would 
be  too  extended  and  minute  for  a  doctrine  so  familiar  and  intelligible. 
The  objection  to  the  third  interpretation  is,  that  the  obvious  design  for 
which  the  comparison  is  introduced  is  not  to  comfort  but  alarm  and  warn. 
The  first  interpretation  is  too  vague  and  unconnected  with  the  context. 
The  preference  is  therefore,  on  the  whole,  due  to  the  second,  which  sup- 
poses the  Prophet  to  explain  by  this  comparison  the  long  forbearance  of 
Jehovah,  and  to  shew  that  this  forbearance  was  no  reason  for  believing 
that  his  threatenings  would  never  be  fulfilled.  As  the  husbandman  ploughs 
and  harrows,  sows  and  plants,  before  he  reaps  and  threshes,  and  in  thresh- 
ing employs  difierent  modes  and  difierent  implements,  according  to  the 
nature  of  the  grain,  so  God  allows  the  actual  infliction  of  his  wrath  to  be 
preceded  by  what  seems  to  be  a  period  of  inaction  but  is  really  one  of  pre- 
paration, and  conforms  the  strokes  themselves  to  the  capacity  and  guilt  of 
the  transgressor. 

24..  Does  the  ploughman  plough  every  day  to  sow?  Does  he  open  and 
level  his  ground  /  The  common  version  all  day,  though  it  seems  to  be  a 
literal  translation,  does  not  convey  the  sense  of  the  original  expression, 
which  is  used  both  here  and  elsewhere  to  mean  all  the  time  or  always. 
(Gill :  he  may  plough  a  whole  day  together  when  he  is  at  it,  but  he  does 
not  plough  e\eYj  day  in  the  year  ;  he  has  other  work  to  do  besides  plough- 
ing.) The  interrogation  may  be  confined  to  the  first  clause,  and  the  second 
constnied  as  an  exhortation  :  (no)  let  hi^n  open  and  level  his  ground.'^.  But 
as  there  is  a  difficulty  then  in  explaining  what  is  meant  by  opening  the 
ground,  as  distinct  from  opening  the  furrows  with  the  plough,  most  inter- 
preters suppose  the  interrogation  to  extend  through  the  verse,  and  make 
the  second  clause  a  repetition  of  the  fii-st,  with  an  additional  reference  to 
haiTowing.  As  if  he  had  said.  Is  the  ploughman  always  ploughing  ?  is  he 
always  ploughing  and  harrowing  ?  Kimchi  explains  the  last  clause  thus, 
as  an  answer  to  the  question  in  the  first :  [no)  he  will  loose  {his  oxen)  and 
harrow  his  ground. 

25.  Does  he  not,  tvhen  he  has  levelled  the  surface  of  it,  cast  alroad  dill, 
and  scatter  cummin,  and  set  wheat  in  roivs,  aud  barley  {in  the  place)  marked 
out,  and  spelt  in  his  border  ?  That  is  to  say,  he  attends  to  all  these  pro- 
cesses of  husbandry  successively,  with  due  regard  to  time  and  place,  and 
to  the  various  crops  to  be  produced.  The  words  miJ^  and  I^DJ  are  by  some 
explained  as  epithets  of  the  grain  ;  principal  tcheat,  appointed  or  sealed 
harlnj.  Ewald  makes  them  descriptive  of  the  soil ;  wheat  in  the  best 
ground,  barley  in  the  rough  ground.     But  the  explanation  best  sustained 


Ver.  26-28.]  ISAIAH  XXVIII.  459 

by  usage  and  analogy  is  that  of  Gesenius,  who  takes  pD3  in  the  sense  of 
appointed,  designated,  and  rTni;'  in  that  of  a  row  or  series.  This  agrees 
well  with  the  verb  2^  as  denoting,  not  an  indiscriminate  sowing,  but  a 
careful  planting,  which  is  said  to  be  still  practised  in  the  oriental  culture 
of  wheat,  and  is  thought  by  Gesenius  and  others  to  have  been  one  of  the 
causes  of  the  wonderful  fertility  of  Palestine  in  ancient  times.  The  suffix 
in  in?2J  probably  relates  to  the  farmer,  and  the  noun  to  the  edge  of  the  field 
in  which  the  other  grains  are  sown  or  planted.  The  reference  of  the 
suffix  to  |ODJ,  or  to  the  several  preceding  nouns,  is  very  forced.  Gesenius, 
in  order  to  retain  the  supposed  paronomasia  of  mytJ")  miCi',  gives  his 
version  of  this  clause  the  form  of  doggerel — (Waizen  in  Eeihen  und  Gerste 
hinein.) 

26.  So  teaches  him  arifjht  his  God  instructs  him.  This  is  the  form  of 
the  Hebrew  sentence,  in  which  his  God  is  the  grammatical  subject  of  both 
the  verbs  between  which  it  stands.  The  English  idiom  requires  the  noun 
to  be  prefixed,  as  in  the  common  version,  and  by  Lowth,  Barnes,  and 
Henderson.  DDt^'O?  means  according  to  what  is  right,  i.e.  correctly.  The 
verse  refers  even  agricultm-al  skill  to  divine  instruction.  As  parallels  the 
commentators  quote,  from  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  (vii.  16)  yiusylav  I'jrh 
l-^i'sTo-j  r/.-tGi^hnv,  and  from  the  Georgics,  (i.  157),  Prima  Ceres  ferro 
mortales  vertere  terram  instituit.  Joseph  Ivimchi  thus  explains  the  verse : 
so  he  (the  husbandman)  chastises  it  (the  ground,  as)  his  God  teaches  him. 

27.  For  not  with  the  sledge  must  dill  be  threshed,  or  the  cart-icheel  turned 
upon  cummin ;  for  uith  the  stick  must  dill  be  beaten,  and  cummin  with  the 
rod.  Having  drawn  an  illustration  from  the  husbandman's  regard  to  times 
and  seasons,  he  now  derives  another  from  his  difierent  modes  of  threshing 
out  the  different  kinds  of  grain.  The  semina  infirmiora,  as  Jerome 
calls  them,  are  not  to  be  separated  by  the  use  of  the  ponderous  sledge 
or  waggon,  both  of  which  are  common  in  the  East,  but  b}^  that  of  the 
flail  or  switch,  as  better  suited  to  their  nature.  The  minute  description 
of  the  oriental  threshing-machines  belongs  more  properly  to  books  of 
archaeology,  especially  as  nothing  more  is  necessary  here  to  the  correct 
understanding  of  the  verse  than  a  just  view  of  the  contrast  intended  be- 
tween heav}-  and  light  threshing.  The  ^?  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse 
might  be  translated  that,  and  understood  as  introducing  an  explicit  state- 
ment as  to  what  it  is  that  God  thus  teaches  him.  His  God  instructs  him 
that,  &c.  This  arrangement  of  the  sentences,  though  certainly  not  neces- 
sary, makes  them  clearer,  and  is  favoured  by  the  otherwise  extraordinary 
brevity  of  ver.  26,  as  well  as  by  its  seeming  interruption  of  the  intimate 
connection  between  vers.  25  and  27.  An  objection  to  it,  di-awn  from  the 
analogy  of  ver.  29,  will  be  stated  in  the  exposition  of  that  verse. 

28.  Bread-corn  must  be  crushed,  for  he  will  not  he  always  threshing  it ; 
so  he  drives  the  wheel  of  his  cart  [upon  it),  hut  with  his  horsemen  [or  horses) 
he  does  not  crush  it.  The  sense  of  this  verse  is  obscured  by  an  apparent 
inconsistency  between  the  opening  and  the  closing  words.  Ewald  cuts  the 
knot  by  reading  ^H-'l''  in  the  former  place.  Umbreit  takes  Cjn?  in  its  proper 
sense  of  bread,  and  understands  the  clause  to  mean  that  bread  is  broken 
by  the  teeth !  Others  make  the  first  clause  interrogative,  and  thus  con- 
form it  to  the  express  negation  in  the  last  clause.  The  translation  above 
given  supposes  a  climax  beginning  in  ver.  27  and  completed  here.  Dill 
and  cummin  must  be  threshed  out  with  the  flail ;  wheat  and  barley  ma}'  be 
more  severely  dealt  with ;  they  will  bear  the  wheel,  but  not  the  hoofs  of 
horses.     The  first  words  and  the  last  are  then  in  strict  agreement ;  bread- 


400  ISAIAH  XXIX.  [Ver.  29. 

com  mast  be  braised,  but  not  with  horses'  hoofs.  This  is  merely  sug- 
gested as  an  additional  attempt  to  elucidate  a  passage  in  detail,  the  general 
sense  of  which  is  clear  enough.  The  reading  VD1S  his  hoofs  (i.e.  the  hoofs 
of  his  cattle)  is  unnecessary,  as  the  use  of  t^"lS  in  the  sense  of  horse  appears 
to  be  admitted  by  the  best  philological  authorities.  The  historical  objec- 
tion, that  the  horse  was  not  in  common  use  for  agricultural  purposes, 
seems  to  be  likewise  regarded  by  interpreters  as  inconclusive. 

29.  Even  this  (or  this  also)  from  Jehovah  of  hosts  comes  forth ;  he  is 
wonderful  in  courisel,  great  in  wisdom.  The  literal  translation  of  the  last 
clause  is,  he  makes  counsel  xoonderful,  he  makes  wisdom  great.  The  Hiphils 
may,  however,  be  supposed  to  signify  the  exhibition  of  the  qualities  denoted 
by  the  nouns,  or  taken  as  intransitives.  The  antithesis  which  some  sup- 
pose the  last  clause  to  contain  between  plan  and  execution  (wonderful  in 
counsel  and  excellent  in  worJcing)  is  justified  neither  by  the  derivation  nor 
the  usage  of  n*P'iri.  As  to  the  meaning  of  the  whole  verse,  some  suppose 
that  the  preceding  illustration  is  here  applied  to  the  divine  dispensations  ; 
others,  that  this  is  the  conclusion  of  the  illustration  itself.  On  the  latter 
hypothesis,  the  meaning  of  the  verse  is,  that  the  husbandman's  treatment 
of  the  crop,  no  less  than  his  preparation  of  the  soil,  is  a  dictate  of  experience 
under  divine  teaching.  In  the  other  case,  the  sense  is,  that  the  same  mode 
of  proceeding,  which  had  just  been  described  as  that  of  a  wise  husbandman, 
is  also  practised  by  the  Most  High  in  the  execution  of  his  purposes. 
Against  this,  and  in  favour  of  the  other  explanation,  it  may  be  suggested, 
fii'st,  that  coming  forth  from  God  is  a  phrase  not  so  naturally  suited  to 
express  his  own  way  of  acting  as  the  iutluence  which  he  exerts  on  others ; 
secondly,  that  this  verse  seems  to  correspond,  in  form  and  sense,  to  ver.  27, 
and  to  bear  the  same  relation  to  the  diflerent  modes  of  threshing  that 
ver.  27  does  to  the  preparation  of  the  ground  and  the  sowing  of  the  seed. 
Having  there  said  of  the  latter,  that  the  husbandman  is  taught  of  God,  he 
now  says  of  the  former,  that  it  also  comes  forth  from  the  same  celestial 
source.  This  analogy  may  also  serve  to  shew  that  ver.  27  is  not  a  part  of 
ver  28,  and  thereby  to  make  it  probable  that  ""S  at  the  beginning  of  the 
latter  is  to  be  translated  for,  because.  According  to  the  view  which  has 
now  been  taken  of  ver.  29,  the  general  application  of  the  parable  to  God's 
dispensations  is  not  formally  expressed,  but  left  to  the  reflection  of  the 
reader. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts,  parallel  to  one  another,  /.  <-.  each 
containing  the  same  series  of  promises  and  threatenings,  but  in  difl'erent 
forms.  The  prophetic  substance  or  material  of  both  is  that  Zion  should  be 
threatened  and  assailed,  yet  not  destroyed,  but  on  the  contrary  strengthened 
and  enlarged.  These  ideas  are  expressed  in  the  second  part  much  more 
fully  and  explicitly  than  in  the  first,  which  must  therefore  be  interpreted 
according  to  what  follows.  In  the  first  part,  the  threatening  is  that  Zion 
shall  bo  assailed  by  enemies  and  brought  very  low,  vers.  1-4.  The  promise 
is  that  the  assailants  shall  be  scattered  like  dust  and  chatf,  vanish  hke  a 
dream,  and  be  wholly  disappointed  in  their  hostile  purpose,  vers.  5-8.  In 
the  second  part,  the  Prophet  brings  distinctly  into  view,  as  causes  of  the 
threatened  judgments,  the  spiritual  intoxication  and  stupor  of  the  people, 
their  blindness  to  revealed  truth,  tlieir  hypocritical  formahty,  and  their 


Yer.  1.]  ISAIAH  XXIX.  461 

presumptuous  contempt  of  God,  vers.  9-16.  The  judgment  itself  is  de- 
scribed as  a  confounding  of  their  fancied  wisdom,  ver.  14.  The  added 
promise  is  that  of  an  entrre  revolution,  including  the  destruction  of  the 
^yicked,  and  especially  of  wicked  rulers,  the  restoration  of  spiritual  sight, 
joy  to  the  meek  and  poor  in  spirit,  and  the  final  recovery  of  Israel  from  a 
state  of  alienation  and  disgrace,  to  the  semce  of  Jehovah  and  to  the  saving 
knowledge  of  the  truth,  vers.  17-24.  The  attempts  to  explain  the  first 
part  of  the  chapter  as  relating  to  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Sennacherib, 
Nebuchadnezzar,  or  Titus,  have  been  unsuccessful,  partly  because  the  de- 
scription is  not  strictly  appropriate  to  either  of  these  events,  and  partly 
because  the  connection  with  what  follows  is,  on  either  of  these  suppositions, 
wholly  obscure.  Those  who  deny  the  inspiration  of  the  writer  regard  the 
last  part  as  a  visionaiy  anticipation  which  was  never  fully  verified.  Those 
who  admit  it  are  obliged  to  assume  an  abrupt  transition  from  the  siege  of 
Jerusalem  to  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  The  only  key  to  the  consistent 
exposition  of  the  chapter  as  a  whole  is  furnished  by  the  hypothesis  already 
stated,  and  that  the  two  parts  are  parallel,  not  merely  successive,  and  that 
the  second  must  explain  the  fii'st.  That  the  second  part  describes  not 
physical  but  spiritual  evils,  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  and  indeed  asserted 
by  the  Prophet  himself.  This  description  is  directly  and  repeatedly  applied 
in  the  New  Testament  to  the  Jews  contemporary  with  our  Saviour.  It 
does  not  follow  fi'om  this^  that  it  is  a  specific  and  exclusive  prophecy  re- 
specting them  ;  but  it  does  follow  that  it  must  be  so  interpreted  as  to 
include  them,  which  can  only  be  effected  by  regarding  this  last  part  of  the 
chapter  as  descriptive  of  the  Jews,  not  at  one  time  merely,  but  throughout  the 
period  of  the  old  dispensation, — an  assumption  fully  confirmed  by  history. 
The  judgment  threatened  will  then  be  the  loss  of  their  peculiar  privileges, 
and  an  exchange  of  state  with  others  who  had  been  less  favoured,  involving 
an  extension  of  the  church  beyond  its  ancient  bounds,  the  destruction  of 
the  old  abuses,  and  the  final  restoration  of  the  Jews  themselves.  If  this 
be  the  meaning  of  the  second  part,  it  seems  to  determine  that  of  the  first 
as  a  figurative  expression  of  the  truth,  that  the  church  should  sufi'er  but  not 
perish,  the  imageiy  used  for  this  purpose  being  boiTOwed  from  the  actual 
sieges  of  Jerusalem.  Thus  understood,  the  chapter  is  prophetic  of  two 
great  events,  the  seeming  destruction  of  the  ancient  church,  and  its  repro- 
duction in  a  new  and  far  Qiore  glorious  form,  so  as  not  only  to  include  the 
Gentiles  in  its  bounds,  but  also  the  converted  remnant  of  God's  ancient 
people. 

1.  Woe  to  Arid  (or  alas  for  Ariel),  Ariel,  the  city  David  encamped! 
Add  year  to  year  ;  let  thejea.sts  revolve.  All  interpreters  agree  that  Ariel 
is  here  a  name  for  Zion  or  Jerusalem,  although  they  greatly  difier  in  the 
explanation  of  the  name  itself.  Besides  the  explanation  which  resolves 
the  form  into  ^^"^y}  (mountain  of  God),  there  are  two  between  which  in- 
terpreters are  chiefly  divided.  One  of  these  makes  it  mean  lion  of  God,  i.  e. 
a  hon-like  champion  or  hero  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  20,  Isa.  xxxiii.  7),  here  applied 
to  Jerusalem  as  a  city  of  heroes  which  should  never  be  subdued.  This  ex- 
pb.uation  is  retained  not  only  by  Gesenius,  but  by  Ewald,  who,  to  make 
the  application  more  appropriate,  translates  it  lioness  of  God.  The  other 
hypothesis  explains  it,  from  an  Ai-abic  analogy,  to  mean  the  hearth  ox  fire- 
place of  God,  in  which  sense  it  seems  to  be  applied  to  the  altar  byEzekiel, 
(xliii.  15,  10),  and  the  extension  of  the  name  to  the  whole  city  is  the  more 
natural  because  Isaiah  himself  says  of  Jehovah  that  his  fire  is  in  Zion  and 
hisjuruace  in  Jerusalem  (chap.  xxxi.  9).     Hitzig  supposes  the  name  to  be 


462  ISAIAH  XXIX.  [Ykh.  2-4. 

here  used  in  the  first  souse,  but  with  an  allusion  to  the  other  in  the  following 
verse.  This  double  usage  is  the  less  improbable,  because  the  name  is  evi- 
dently meant  to  be  enigmatical.  The  Rabbins  combine  the  two  explanations 
of  the  Hebrew  word  by  supposing  that  the  altar  was  itself  called  the  lion  of 
God,  because  it  devoured  the  victims  like  a  lion,  or  because  the  fire  on  it 
had  the  appearance  of  a  lion,  or  because  the  altar  (or  the  temple)  was  in 
shape  like  a  lion,  that  is,  narrow  behind  and  broad  in  front !  The  city 
David  encamped  is  an  elliptical  expression,  not  unlike  the  Hebrew  one,  in 
which  the  relative  must  be  supplied,  or  ri^"jip  supposed  to  govern  the  whole 
pln-ase  "in  njn  as  a  noun.  Here  again  there  seems  to  be  a  twofold  allusion 
to  David's  siege  and  conquest  of  Zion  (2  Sam.  v.  7),  and  to  his  afterwards 
encamping,  i.  e.  dwelling  there  (2  Sam.  v.  9).  Add  year  to  year  is  under- 
stood by  Grotius  to  mean  that  the  prophecy  should  be  fulfilled  in  two  years, 
or  in  other  words,  that  it  was  uttered  just  two  years  before  Sennacherib's 
invasion.  Upon  this  clause  Hitzig  founds  an  ingenious  but  complex  and 
aiiificial  theory  as  to  the  chronology  of  this  whole  passage  (chaps,  xxviii.— 
xxxi.).  Most  interpreters  explain  the  words  as  simply  meaning,  let  the 
years  roll  on  with  the  accustomed  routine  of  ceremonial  services.  Many  of 
the  older  writers  take  the  last  words  of  the  verse  in  this  sense,  let  them  kill 
(or  more  specifically,  cut  off  the  heads  of)  the  sacri/icial  victims  ;  but  it  is 
more  in  accordance  both  with  the  usage  of  the  words  and  with  the  context, 
to  give  Ciin  its  usual  sense  oi  feasts  or  festivals,  and  ^PJ^  that  of  moving  in 
a  circle  or  revohing,  which  it  has  in  Hiphil.  The  phrase  then  corresponds 
exactly  to  the  one  preceding,  add  year  to  year. 

2.  And  I  ivill  distress  Ariel,  and  there  shall  he  sadness  and  sorrow,  and  it 
shall  be  to  me  as  Ariel.  Let  the  years  revolve  and  the  usual  routine  con- 
tinue, but  the  time  is  coming  when  it  shall  be  interrupted.  The  words 
translated  sadness  and  sorrow  are  collateral  derivatives  from  one  root.  The 
best  imitation  of  the  form  of  the  original  is  that  given  by  Vitringa  (inoeror 
ac  moestitia).  The  last  clause  may  be  either  a  continuation  of  the  threaten- 
ing or  an  added  promise.  If  the  former,  the  meaning  probably  is,  it  shall 
he  indeed  a  furnace  or  an  altar,  i.  e.  when  the  fire  of  aftliction  or  divine 
Avrath  shall  be  kindled  on  it.  If  the  latter,  it  shall  still  he  a  city  of  heroes, 
and  as  such  withstand  its  enemies.  Or,  combining  both  the  senses  of  the 
enigmatical  name,  it  shall  burn  like  a  furnace,  but  resist  like  a  lion. 

3.  And  I  ivill  camp  against  thee  round  about  (literally,  as  a  riny  or  circle), 
and  push  ayainst  thee  (or  jjress  upon  thee  with)  a  post  (or  body  of  troops), 
and  raise  agai)ist  thee  ramparts  (or  entrenchments).  The  siege  of  Ariel  is 
now  represented  as  the  work  of  God  himself,  which  although  it  admits  of 
explanation  as  referring  merely  to  his  providential  oversight  and  control, 
seems  here  to  be  significant,  as  intimating  that  the  siege  described  is  not  a 
literal  one.  The  dubious  phrase  3^'D  ybv  Tll^l  is  understood  by  Ewald  as 
meaning,  /  enclose  thee  ivith  a  wall,  or  literally,  close  a  wall  around  thee.  To 
the  supposition  that  these  words  relate  to  Sennacherib's  attack  upon  Jerusalem, 
it  has  been  objected  that  the  history  contains  no  record  of  an  actual  siege. 
Henderson,  indeed,  says  that  there  cannot  be  a  doubt  that  they  occupied 
themselves  with  hostile  demonstrations  while  the  negotiations  were  going 
forward ;  but,  in  spite  of  this  assurance,  there  is  still  room  for  suspicion 
that  this  verse  docs  not,  after  all,  relate  to  the  Assyrian  incursion. 

4.  A)ul  thou  shall  be  lirouyht  down,  out  of  the  yround  shall  thou  speak,  and 
thy  speech  shall  be  low  out  of  the  dust,  and  thy  voice  shall  be  like  [the  voice 
of)  a  spirit,  out  of  the  ground,  and  out  of  the  dust  shall  thy  speech  mutter. 
Grotius  understands  this  of  the  people's  hiding  themselves  in  subterranean 


Ver.  5,  6.]  ISAIAH  XXIX.  463 

retreats  during  Sennacherib's  invasion,  while  Vitringa  shews  from  Joscphus 
that  such  measm-es  were  actually  adopted  during  the  Roman  siege  of  Jeru- 
salem. But  the  simple  meaning  natui-ally  suggested  by  the  words  is,  that 
the  person  here  addressed,  to  wit,  the  city  or  its  population,  should  be 
weakened  and  humbled.  Some  suppose  the  voice  to  be  compared  with  that 
of  a  dying  man  or  a  departing  spirit ;  others,  with  that  of  a  necromancer 
who  pretended  to  evoke  the  dead.  To  this  last  the  terms  of  the  comparison 
Mould  be  the  more  appropriate  if,  as  the  modem  ^Titers  commonly  suppose, 
the  ancient  necromancers  used  ventriloquism  as  a  means  of  practising  upon 
the  credulous.  The  last  verb  properly  denotes  any  feeble  inarticulate  sound, 
and  is  applied  in  chap.  x.  14,  and  xxxviii.  14,  to  the  chirping  or  twittering 
of  bii-ds. 

5.  The7i  shall  he  like  fine  dust  the  multitude  of  thy  strangers,  and  like 
passing  chaff  the  mtdtitude  of  the  terrible  ones,  and  it  shall  he  in  a  moment 
suddenly.  Calvin  understands  by  strangers  foreign  allies  or  mercenary 
troops,  which  he  supposes  to  be  here  described  as  powerless  and  as  enduring 
but  a  moment.  Others  among  the  older  writers  take  strangers  more  cor- 
rectly in  the  sense  of  enemies,  but  understand  the  simile  as  merely  descrip- 
tive of  their  numbers  and  velocity.  It  is  now  very  commonly  agi-eed, 
however,  that  the  verse  describes  their  sudden  and  complete  dispersion. 
The  absence  of  hut  at  the  beginning,  or  some  other  indication  that  the 
writer  is  about  to  pass  from  threats  to  promises,  although  it  renders  the 
connection  more  obscure,  increases  the  eflect  of  the  description.  Ewald, 
instead  of  multitude  has  tzcmidt,  which  is  the  primary  meaning  of  the  word; 
but  the  former  is  clearly  established  by  usage,  and  is  here  much  more 
appropriate,  since  it  is  not  the  noise  of  a  great  crowd,  but  the  crowd  itself, 
that  can  be  likened  to  fine  dust  ox  flitting  chaff]  as  Lowth  poetically  renders 
it.  The  terms  of  this  verse  readily  suggest  the  sudden  fall  of  the  Assyrian 
host,  nor  is  there  any  reason  for  denying  that  the  Prophet  had  a  view  to  it 
in  choosing  his  expressions.  But  that  this  is  an  explicit  and  specific  pro- 
phecy of  that  event  is  much  less  probable,  as  well  because  the  terms  are  in 
themselves  appropriate  to  any  case  of  sudden  and  complete  dispersion,  as 
because  the  contest  contains  language  wholly  inappropriate  to  the  slaughter 
of  Sennacherib's  army.  To  the  Babylonian  and  Roman  sieges,  which  were 
both  successful,  the  verse  before  us  is  entirely  inapplicable.  These  con- 
siderations, although  negative  and  inconclusive  in  themselves,  tend  strongly 
to  confii'm  the  supposition  founded  on  the  last  part  of  the  chapter,  that  the 
first  contains  a  strong  metaphorical  description  of  the  evils  which  Jerusalem 
should  sufi'er  at  the  hands  of  enemies,  but  without  exclusive  reference  to 
an}^  one  siege,  or  to  sieges  in  the  literal  sense  at  all.  That  the  evils  which 
the  last  part  of  the  chapter  brings  to  light  are  of  a  spiritual  natui'e,  and  not 
confined  to  any  single,period,  is  a  fact  which  seems  to  warrant  the  conclusion, 
or  at  least  to  raise  a  strong  presumption,  that  the  Ariel  of  this  passage  is 
Zion  or  Jerusalem  considered  only  as  the  local  habitation  of  the  church. 

6.  From  uith  (/.  e.  from  the  presence  of)  Jehovah  of  hosts  shall  it  be 
visited  uith  thunder,  and  earthquake,  and  great  noise,  tempest  and  storm,  and 
flame  of  devouring  fire.  Vitringa  refers  this  to  the  singular  phenomena 
which  are  said  to  have  preceded  and  accompanied  the  taking  of  Jerusalem 
by  Titus.  This  application  may  be  admitted,  in  the  same  sense  and  on  the 
same  ground  with  the  allusion  to  Sennacherib's  host  in  the  foregoing  verse. 
But  that  the  prophecy  is  not  a  prophecy  of  either  catastrophe,  may  be  in- 
feiTed  from  the  fact  that  neither  is  described  in  the  context.  Indeed,  the 
direct  application  of  this  verse  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  is  wholly  inadmis- 


464  ISAIAH  XXIX.  [Ver.  7,  8. 

sible,  since  tlie  preceding  verse  describes  the  assailants  as  dispersed,  and 
this  appears  to  continue  the  description.  As  1i?.3J!l  can  be  either  the  third 
person  feminine  or  the  second  masculine,  the  verse  may  be  considered  as 
addressed  directly  to  the  enemy ;  or  the  verb  may  agree  with  jion  as  a 
feminine  noun,  in  which  way  it  is  construed  elsewhere  (Job  xxxi.  34), 
although  evidently  masculine  in  ver.  8  below.  The  city  cannot  be  addressed, 
because  the  verb  must  then  be  feminine,  and  the  preceding  verse  forbids  the 
one  before  us  to  be  taken  as  a  threatening  against  Ariel. 

7.  Then  shall  he  a.v  a  dream,  a  vvAon  of  the  night,  the  mxdtiiude  of  all 
the  nations  fighting  against  Ariel,  even  all  that  fight  against  her  and  her 
munition,  and  distress  her.  Calvin  understands  this  to  mean  that  the  enemy 
shall  take  her  unawares,  as  one  awakes  from  a  dream.  The  modern  writers 
generally  understand  both  this  verse  and  the  next  as  meaning  that  the  enemy 
himself  should  be  wholly  disappointed,  and  his  vain  hopes  vanish  as  a  dream. 
But  the  true  sense  appears  to  be  the  one  proposed  by  Grotius  and  others, 
who  regard  the  comparisons  in  these  two  verses  as  distinct  though  similar, 
the  enemy  being  first  compared  to  a  dream  and  then  to  a  dreamer.  He 
who  threatens  your  destruction  shall  vanish  like  a  dream,  par  Icvdms  ventis 
volucrique  simillima  somno.  He  who  threatens  your  destruction  shall  awake 
as  from  a  dream,  and  find  himself  cheated  of  his  expectations,  for,  as  Grotius 
beautifully  says,  spes  sunt  vigilantium  somnia.  These  seem  to  be  the  two 
comparisons  intended,  both  of  which  are  perfectly  appropriate,  and  one  of 
which  might  readily  suggest  the  other.  The  feminine  pronouns  may  refer 
to  Arid  as  itself  a  feminine,  or  to  the  city  which  it  represents. 

8.  And  it  sJiall  ho  as  tvhen  the  hungry  dreams,  and  lo  he  eats,  and  he 
axcalces,  and  his  soid  is  emjdy  ;  and  as  when  the  thirsty  dreams,  and  lo  lie 
drinks,  and  he  awakes,  and  lo  he  is  faint  and  his  soul  craving  :  so  shcdl  be 
the  mullihide  of  all  the  nations  that  fight  against  mount  Zion.  The  meaning 
of  this  beautiful  comparison  seems  so  clear,  and  its  application  to  the  dis- 
appointment of  the  enemies  of  Ariel  so  palpable,  that  it  is  hard  to  under- 
stand how  such  an  interpreter  as  Calvin  could  say,  NUid  hie  ricleo  quod  ad 
consolationem  perti)ieat.  His  explanation  of  the  verse  as  meaning  that  the 
Jews  should  be  awakened  by  the  enemy  from  their  dream  of  security  and 
find  themselves  wholly  unpro\-ided  with  the  necessary  means  of  defence, 
is  forced  and  arbitrary  in  a  high  degi-ee,  and  seems  the  more  so  when  pro- 
pounded by  a  writer  who  is  characteristically  free  from  all  propensity 
to  strained  and  far-fetched  expositions.  In  this  verse  soul  is  twice  used  in 
the  not  uncommon  sense  oi appetite,  first  described  as  empty  [i.e.  unsatisfied), 
and  then  as  craving.  This  is  much  better  than  to  take  the  word,  with 
Grotius,  as  a  mere  periphrasis  for  the  man  himself.  To  this  verse  Lowth 
quotes  a  beautiful  but  certainly  inferior  parallel  from  Lucretius  : 

Ac  velut  in  soninis  sitiens  qiuim  quserit,  et  humor 
Non  datur,  ardorera  in  nienibris  qui  stingnere  possit, 
Sed  laticum  simulacra  petit,  frustraque  laborat, 
In  medioque  sitit  torrenti  flumine  potans. 

The  passage  quoted  from  Virgil  by  the  same  accomplished  critic  is  not  so 
opposite  because  more  general.  A  less  poetical  but  not  less  striking  and 
afiecting  parallel  from  real  life  is  found  in  one  of  Mungo  Park's  journals, 
and  pertinently  quoted  here  by  Barnes.  "  No  sooner  had  I  shut  my  eyes 
than  fancy  would  convey  me  to  the  streams  and  rivers  of  my  native  land. 
•There,  as  I  wandered  along  the  verdant  bank,  I  surveyed  the  clear  stream 
with  transport,  and  hastened  to  swallow  the  delightful  draught;  but  alas  ! 


Ver.  9-11.]  ISAIAU  XXIX.  465 

disappointment  awakened  me,  and  I  found  myself  a  lonely  captive,  perish- 
ing of  thirst  amid  the  wilds  of  Africa." 

9.  Waver  and  ivonder !  be  mernj  and  blind!  They  are  drunk,  but  not 
with  wine  ;  they  reel,  but  not  with  strnny  drink.  Here  begins  the  description 
of  the  moral  and  spiritual  evils  which  were  the  occasion  of  the  judgments 
previously  threatened.  In  the  first  clause,  the  Prophet  describes  the  con- 
dition of  the  people  by  exhorting  them  ironically  to  continue  in  it ;  in  the 
second,  he  seems  to  turn  away  from  them  and  address  the  spectators.  The 
terms  of  the  first  clause  are  very  obscure.  In  each  of  its  members  two 
cognate  verbs  are  used,  but  whether  as  synonymous,  or  as  expressing 
difierent  ideas,  appears  doubtful.  Ewald  adopts  the  former  supposition, 
and  regards  the  first  two  as  denoting  wonder  {erstannt  und  staunt),  the  last 
two  blindness  [erblindet  und  blindet).  Gesenius,  on  the  contrary,  supposes 
verbs  ahke  in  form  but  different  in  sense  to  be  designedly  combined.  To 
the  first  he  gives  the  sense  of  lingering,  hesitating,  doubting  ;  to  the  second, 
that  of  wondering;  to  the  third,  that  of  taking  pleasure  or  indulging  the 
desires  ;  to  the  fourth,  that  of  being  blind.  The  second  imperative  in  either 
case  he  understands  as  indicating  the  effect  or  consequence  of  that  before 
it :  refuse  to  believe,  but  you  will  only  be  the  more  astonished ;  continue 
to  enjoy  yourselves,  but  it  will  only  be  the  means  of  blinding  you.  The 
express  description  of  the  drunkenness  as  spiritual,  shews  that  where  no 
such  explanation  is  added  (as  in  chap,  xx^dii.  1,  7),  the  terms  are  to  be 
literally  understood.  By  spiritual  drunkenness  we  are  probably  to  under- 
stand unsteadiness  of  conduct  and  a  want  of  spiritual  discernment. 

10.  For  Jehovah  hath  poured  out  upon  you  a  spirit  of  deep  sleep,  and  hath 
shut  your  eyes  ;  the  prophets  and  your  heads  (or  even  your  heads)  the  seers 
hath  he  covered.  On  the  agency  here  ascribed  to  God,  see  the  exposition 
of  chap.  vi.  9,  10.  The  two  ideas  expressed  in  the  parallel  clauses  are 
those  of  bandaging  the  eyes  and  covering  the  head  so  as  to  obstruct  the 
sight.  In  the  latter  case,  the  Prophet  makes  a  special  application  of  the 
figure  to  the  chiefs  or  religious  leaders  of  the  people,  as  if  he  had  said,  he 
hath  shut  your  eyes,  and  covered  your  heads,  viz.  the  prophets'.  Some 
have  proposed  to  make  the  clauses  more  symmetrical  by  changing  the 
division  of  the  sentence,  so  as  to  read  thus,  he  hath  shut  your  eyes,  the 
prophets,  and  your  heads,  the  seers,  hath  he  covered.  Others,  because  the 
Prophet  did  not  use  a  commonplace  expression  or  confoi-m  to  the  petty 
rules  of  rhetoric,  reject  prophets  and  seers  as  a  gloss  accidentally  transferred 
from  the  margin.  One  of  the  reasons  given  for  this  bold  mutilation  of  the 
text  is,  that  the  subject  of  the  previous  description  is  not  the  prophets  but 
the  people  ;  as  if  the  former  were  not  evidently  mentioned  as  the  leaders  of 
the  latter.  The  people  were  blinded  by  rendering  the  revelations  of  the 
prophets  useless.  To  produce  the  usual  confusion,  Ewald,  though  he  strikes 
out  D''X''3J,  insists  upon  retaining  D''Tn  as  an  adjective  agreeing  with  DD'^E^X"! 
{your  seeing  heads).  This  amendment  of  Gesenius" s  amendment  has  the 
good  effect  of  making  both  ridiculous,  and  shewing  that  the  common  text, 
with  all  its  difficulties,  is  best  entitled  to  respect  and  confidence. 

11.  And.  the  vision  of  all  (or  of  the  whole)  is  (or  has  become)  to  you  like 
the  words  of  the  sealed  writing,  which  they  give  to  one  knowing  writing,  saying, 
Pray  read  this,  and  he  says,  I  cannot,  for  it  is  sealed.  The  vision  of  all  may 
either  mean  of  all  the  prophets,  or  collectively  all  vision,  or  the  vision  of  all 
things,  i.  e.  prophecy  on  all  subjects  (Ewald  :  Weissagung  liber  alles). 
Gesenius  arbitrarily  takes  vision  in  the  sense  of  law.     If  we  depart  from 

VOL.  I.  '  G  g 


4GG  ISAIAH  XXIX.  [Yek.  12-14. 

that  oi  lyroijliecy,  the  most  appropriate  sense  would  be  the  primary  one  of 
sight.  The  English  word  hoolc  does  not  exactly  represent  the  Hebrew  "^^P, 
■which  originally  signifies  writing  in  general,  or  anything  written  (Hende- 
werk :  Schrift),  and  is  here  used  as  we  might  use  document,  or  the  still 
more  general  term  paper.  J.  D.  Michaelis  employs  the  specific  term  letter, 
which  the  Hebrew  word  is  some  cases  denotes.  In  the  phrase  "ISD  VT",  the 
last  word  seems  to  mean  writing  in  general,  and  the  whole  phrase  one  who 
understands  it,  or  knows  how  to  read  it.  The  application  of  the  simile 
becomes  clear  in  the  next  verse. 

12.  And  the  writing  is  given  to  one  who  knows  not  writing,  saying, 
Pray  read  this,  and  he  sags,  I  know  not  wi-itiiig.  The  common  version,  1 
am  not  learned,  is  too  comprehensive  and  indefinite.  A  man  might  read  a 
letter  without  being  learned,  at  least  in  the  modern  sense,  although  the 
word  was  once  the  opposite  of  illiterate  or  wholly  ignorant.  In  this  case 
it  is  necessary  to  the  full  eftect  of  the  comparison,  that  the  phrase  should 
be  distinctly  understood  to  mean,  /  cannot  read.  The  comparison  itself  re- 
presents the  people  as  alike  incapable  of  understanding  the  divine  communi- 
cations, or  rather  as  professing  incapacity  to  understand  them,  some  upon 
the  general  ground  of  ignorance,  and  others  on  the  ground  of  their  obscurity. 

13.  Jnd  the  Lord  said,  Because  this  peojAe  dratcs  near  loith  its  mouth, 
and  with  its  lips  they  honour  me,  and  its  heart  it  pids  (or  keeps)  far  from 
me,  and  their  fearing  me  is  (or  Jias  lecome)  a  jjrecepA  of  men,  (a  thing) 
taught.  The  apodosis  follows  in  the  next  verse.  Some  read  t^'i!?  for  ^^'53, 
and  understand  the  clause  to  mean,  they  are  compelled  to  honour  me,  they 
serve  me  by  compulsion  ;  or,  when  they  are  oppressed  and  afflicted,  then 
they  honour  me.  The  common  reading  is  no  doubt  the  true  one.  Ewald 
makes  pni  an  intransitive  verb  {wanders  far  from  me),  which  is  contrary 
to  usage.  The  singular  and  plural  pronouns  are  promiscuously  used  in  this 
verse  with  respect  to  Israel  considered  as  a  nation  and  an  individual.  At 
the  end  of  the  verse  the  English  Version  has,  taught  hy  the  precepts  of  men : 
but  a  simpler  construction,  and  one  favoured  by  the  accents,  is  to  take 
mD??D  as  a  neuter  adjective  without  a  substantive  in  apposition  with  HIVD. 
This  clause  might  be  simply  understood  to  mean,  that  they  served  God 
merely  in  obedience  to  human  authority.  It  would  then  of  course  imply 
no  censure  on  the  persons  thus  commanding,  but  only  on  the  motives  of 
those  by  whom  they  were  obeyed.  In  our  Saviour's  application  of  the 
passage  to  the  hyprocritcs  of  his  day  (]\Iat.  xv.  7-9),  he  explains  their 
teachings  as  human  con-uptions  of  the  truth,  by  which  the  commandment 
of  God  was  made  of  none  effect.  The  expressions  of  the  Prophet  may 
have  been  so  chosen  as  to  be  applicable  either  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah, 
when  the  worship  of  Jehovah  was  enforced  by  human  authority,  or  to  the 
time  of  Christ,  when  the  rulers  of  the  peoj^le  had  corrupted  and  made  void 
the  law  by  their  additions.  It  is  unnecessary  to  suppose,  with  Henderson, 
that  this  corruption  had  already  reached  a  great  height  when  Isaiah  wrote. 
The  apparent  reference,  in  this  description,  to  the  Jews,  not  at  one  lime  only 
but  throughout  their  history,  tends  to  confirm  the  supposition,  that  the  sub- 
ject of  the  prophecy  is  not  any  one  specific  juncture,  and  that  the  first  part 
of  the  chapter  is  not  a  prediction  of  any  one  siege  of  Jerusalem  exclusively. 

14.  Therefore,  behold,  I  re  ill  add  (or  contimie)  to  treat  thispjeojile  strangely, 
very  strangely,  and  with  strangeness,  and  the  wit>dom  ff  its  v:ine  ones  shall 
he  lost  (or  perish),  and  the  prudence  of  its  prndod  ones  shall  hide  itself, 
i.  e.  {of  shame,  or  simply  disappear.  This  is  the  conclusion  of  the  sentence 
"which  begins  with  the  preceding  verse.    'Because  they  draiv  near,  &c., 


Ver.  15-17.]  ISAIAH  XXIX.  467 

therefore  I  ivill  add.  Sec.  ^''pl''  is  explained  by  some  as  an  unusual  form  of 
the]  participle  for  ^PV ;  but  the  latest  interpreters  make  it  as  usual  the 
third  person  of  the  future,  and  regard  the  construction  as  elliptical. 
Behold,  I  {am  he  who)  will  add,  &c.     See  a  similar  construction  of  the 

preterite  in  chap,  xxviii.  16.  ^  v?in  is  strictly  to  7naJce  woiiderful,  but 
when  applied  to  persons,  to  t7-eat  wonderful,  i.  e.  in  a  strange  or  extra- 
ordinary manner.     The  idiomatic  repetition   of  the  verb  "nnth  its  cognate 

noun  (N^?l  ^?.?lI)  cannot  be  full}^  reproduced  in  English.  The  literal 
translation  {to  make  wonderfid  and  loonder)  would  be  quite  unmeaning  to 
an  English  reader.  The  nature  of  the  judgment  here  denounced  seems  to 
shew  that  the  corruption  of  the  people  was  closely  connected  with  undue 
reliance  upon  human  wisdom.     (Compare  chap.  v.  21.) 

15.  Woe  unto  those  (or  alas  for  those)  going  deep  from  Jehovah  to  hide 
counsel  (?.  e.  laying  their  plans  deep  in  the  hope  of  hiding  them  from  God), 
and  their  works  {are)  in  the  dark,  and  they  sag.  Who  sees  «s,  and  who  knows 
ns  ?  This  is  a  further  description  of  the  people  or  their  leaders,  as  not  only 
wise  in  their  own  conceit,  but  as  impiously  hoping  to  deceive  God,  or  elude 
his  notice.  The  absurdity  of  such  an  expectation  is  exposed  in  the  following 
verse.     In  the  last  clause  of  this,  the  interrogative  form  implies  negation. 

16.  Your  jierversion  !  Is  the  potter  to  be  reckoned  as  the  clay  (and  nothing 
more),  that  the  thing  made  should  say  of  its  maker.  He  made  me  not,  and  the 
thing  formed  say  of  its  former.  He  does  not  understand?  The  attempt  to 
hide  an}iihing  from  God  implies  that  he  has  not  a  perfect  knowledge  of  his 
creatures,  which  is  practically  to  reduce  the  maker  and  the  thing  made  to 
a  level.  With  this  inversion  or  perversion  of  the  natural  relation  between 
God  and  man,  the  Prophet  charges  them  in  one  word  (D5??in).  The  old 
construction  of  this  word  as  nominative  to  the  verb  {yoxir  tu7-ning  of  things 
upside  dotvn  shall  be  esteemed,  &c.)  appears  to  be  forbidden  by  the  accents 
and  by  the  position  of  the  D5<.  That  of  Barnes  {your  perverseness  is  as  if 
the  p)otter,  &c.)  arbitrarily  supplies  not  only  an  additional  verb  but  a  particle 
of  comparison.  Most  of  the  recent  writers  are  agi'eed  in  construing  the 
first  word  as  an  exclamation,  oh  your  perverseness !  i.  e.  how  perverse  you 
are  !  in  which  sense  it  had  long  before  been  paraphrased  by  Luther  [wie 
seyd  ihr  so  verkehrt  /).  Both  the  derivation  of  the  word,  however,  and  the 
context  here  seem  to  demand  the  sense  perversion  rather  than  perverseness. 
The  verse  seems  intended  not  so  much  to  rebuke  their  perverse  disposition, 
as  to  shew  that  by  their  conduct  they  subverted  the  distinction  between 
creature  and  Creator,  or  placed  them  in  a  preposterous  relation  to  each 
other.  Thus  understood,  the  word  may  be  thus  paraphrased :  {this  is) 
your  {oivn)  perversion  {of  the  truth,  or  of  the  true  relation  between  God 
and  man).  The  English  Version  puts  the  following  nouns  in  regimen 
{like  the  potter  s  clay),  but  the  other  construction  {the  potter  like  the  clay)  is 
so  plainly  required  by  the  context,  that  Gesenius  and  others  disregard  the 
accents  by  which  it  seems  to  be  forbidden.  Hitzig,  however,  denies  that 
the  actual  accentuation  is  at  all  at  variance  with  the  new  construction. 

The  preposition  7  is  here  used  in  its  proper  sense  as  signifying  general 
relation,  with  respect  to,  as  to.  By  translating  ''?  for,  the  connection  of 
the  clauses  becomes  more  obscure. 

17.  Is  it  not  yet  a  very  Utile  while,  and  Lebanon  shall  turn  (or  be  turned) 
to  the  fruitful  field,  and  the  fruitful  field  be  reckoned  to  the  forest  (i.  e. 
reckoned  as  belonging  it,  or  as  being  itself  a  forest)  ?  The  negative  inter- 
rogation is  one  of  the  strongest  forms  of  affirmation.     That  «'^'!'?lI  is  not 


468  ISAIAH  XXIX.  [Ver.  18-20. 

the  proper  name  of  the  mountain,  may  be  inferred  from  the  article,  which 
is  not  prefixed  to  Lebanon.  The  mention  of  the  latter  no  doubt  suggested 
that  of  the  ambiguous  term  Cannel,  which  is  both  a  proper  name  and  an 
appellative.  For  its  sense  and  derivation  see  the  commentary  on  chap. 
X.  18.  The  metaphors  of  this  verse  evidently  signify  a  great  revolution. 
Some  suppose  it  to  be  meant  that  the  lofty  (Lebanon)  shall  be  humbled, 
and  the  lowly  (Carmel)  exalted.  Bat  the  comparison  is  evidently  not 
between  the  high  and  the  low,  but  between  the  cultivated  and  the  wild,  the 
field  and  the  forest.  Some  make  both  clauses  of  the  verse  a  promise,  by 
explaining  the  last  to  mean  that  what  is  now  esteemed  a  fruitful  field  shall 
then  appear  to  be  a  forest  in  comparison.  But  the  only  natural  inter- 
pretation of  the  verse  is  that  which  regards  it  as  prophetic  of  a  mutual 
change  of  condition,  the  first  becoming  last  and  the  last  first.  If,  as  we 
have  seen  suflicient  reason  to  believe,  the  previous  context  has  respect  to 
the  Jews  under  the  old  dispensation,  nothing  can  be  more  appropriate  or 
natural  than  to  understand  the  verse  before,  as  foretelling  the  excision  of 
the  unbelieving  Jews,  and  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  church. 

18.  And  in  that  day  shall  the  deaf  ear  hear  the  words  of  the  book  (or 
loriting),  and  out  of  obscurity  and  darkness  shall  the  eyes  of  the  blind  see. 
This  is  a  further  description  of  the  change  just  predicted  under  other  figures. 
As  the  forest  was  to  be  transformed  into  a  fruitful  field,  so  the  blind  should 
be  made  to  see,  and  the  deaf  to  hear.  There  is  an  obvious  allusion  to  the 
figure  of  the  sealed  book  or  writing  in  vers.  13, 14.  The  Jews  could  only  plead 
obscurity  or  ignorance  as  an  excuse  for  not  understanding  the  revealed  will 
of  God.  The  Gentiles,  in  their  utter  destitution,  might  be  rather  likened  to 
the  blind  who  cannot  read,  however  clear  the  light  or  plain  the  writing,  and 
the  deaf  who  cannot  even  hear  what  is  read  by  others.  But  the  time  was 
coming  when  they,  who  would  not  break  the  seal  or  learn  the  letters  of  the 
^v^itten  word,  should  be  abandoned  to  their  chosen  state  of  ignorance,  while 
on  the  other  hand,  the  blind  and  deaf,  whose  case  before  seemed  hopeless, 
should  begin  to  see  and  hear  the  revelation  once  entii'ely  inaccessible.  The 
perfect  adaptation  of  this  figurative  language  to  express  the  new  relation  of 
the  Jews  and  Gentiles  after  the  end  of  the  old  economy,  afibrds  a  new  proof 
that  the  prophecy  relates  to  that  event. 

19.  And  the  humble  shall  add  joy  {i.  e.  shall  rejoice  more  and  more) 
in  Jehovah,  and  the  poor  among  men  in  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  shall  rejoice. 
As  the  preceding  verse  describes  the  happy  effect  of  the  promised  change 
upon  the  intellectual  views  of  those  who  should  experience  it,  so  this  de- 
scribes its  influence  in  the  promotion  of  their  happiness.  Xot  only  should 
the  ignorant  be  taught  of  God,  but  the  wretched  slaould  be  rendered  happy  in 
the  enjoyment  of  his  favour.     The  poor  of  men,  i.  e.  the  poor  among  them. 

20.  For  the  violent  is  at  an  end,  and  the  scoffer  ceaseth,  and  all  the 
ivntchers  for  injustice  are  cut  off.  Amain  cause  of  the  happiness  foretold 
will  be  the  weakening  or  destruction  of  all  evil  influences,  here  reduced  to  the 
three  great  classes  of  violent  wi'ong-doing,  impious  contempt  of  truth  and 
goodness,  and  malignant  treachery  or  fraud,  which  watches  for  the  oppor- 
tunity of  doing  evil,  with  as  constant  \-igilance  as  ought  to  be  employed  in 
watching  for  occasions  of  redressing  wrong  and  doing  justice.  This  is  a 
change  which,  to  some  extent,  has  always  attended  the  diffusion  of  the  true 
religion.  Gesenius  connects  this  verse  with  the  foregoing  as  a  statement  of 
the  cause  for  which  the  humble  would  rejoice,  viz.  that  the  oppressor  is  no 
more,  &c.  But  this  construction  is  precluded  by  the  fact,  that  wherever 
men  are  said  to  rejoice  in  God,  he  is  himself  the  subject  of  their  joy.     It  is, 


Ver.  21-23.J  ISAIAH  XXIX.  469 

however,  a  mere  question  of  grammatical  arrangement,  not  aflecting  the 
general  import  of  the  passage. 

21.  Making  a  man  a  sinner  for  a  ivord,  and  for  him  disputing  in  the  gate 
they  laid  a  snare,  and  turned  aside  the  righteoxis  through  deceit.  An  amplifi- 
cation of  the  last  phrase  in  the  foregoing  verse.  Some  understand  the  first 
clause  to  mean,  seducing  people  into  sin  by  their  words.  It  is  much  more 
common  to  explain  12"?  ^^  meaning  a  judicial  cause  or  matter,  which  use 
of  the  word  occurs  in  Exodus  xviii.  16.  The  whole  phrase  may  then  mean 
unjustly  condemning  a  man  in  his  cause,  which  agrees  well  with  the  obvious 
allusion  to  forensic  process  in  the  remainder  of  the  verse.  Ewald,  however, 
takes  "1???  in  the  same  sense  with  the  English  and  many  other  early  versions, 
which  explain  the  clause  to  mean  accusing  or  condemning  men  for  a  mere 
error  of  the  tongue  or  lips.  The  general  sense  is  plain,  viz.  that  they 
embrace  all  opportunities  and  use  all  arts  to  wrong  the  guiltless.  Another 
old  interpretation,  now  revived  by  Ewald,  is  that  of  H^DID  as  meaning  one  that 
reproves  others.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  take  it  in  the  sense  of  arguing, 
disputing,  pleading,  in  the  gate,  i.  e.  the  court,  often  held  in  the  gates  of 
oriental  cities.  The  other  explanation  supposes  the  gate  to  be  mentioned 
only  as  a  place  of  public  concourse.  Ewald  translates  it  m  the  market-place. 
By  the  turning  aside  of  the  righteous  ({.  e.  of  the  party  who  is  in  the__right), 
we  are  here  to  understand  the  depriving  him  of  that  which  is  his  due.  For 
the  meaning  and  usage  of  the  figure,  see  the  commentary  on  chap.  x.  2.  -inha 
has  been  variously  understood  to  mean  through  falsehood  (with  particular 
reference  to  false  testimony),  or  by  means  of  a  judgment  which  is  null  and 
void,  or  for  nothing,  i.  e.  without  just  cause.  In  either  case  the  phrase 
describes  the  perversion  or  abuse  of  justice  by  dishonest  means,  and  thus 
agrees  with  the  expressions  used  in  the  foregoing  clauses. 

22.  Therefore  thus  saith  Jehovah  to  the  house  of  Jacob,  he  luho  redeemed 
Abraham,  Not  noio  shall  Jacob  be  ashamed,  and  not  nmo  shall  his  face  turn 
piale.  The  Hebrew  phrase  not  noio  does  not  imply  that  it  shall  be  so  here- 
after, but  on  the  contrary,  that  it  shall  be  so  no  more.  Gesenius  and  others 
render  7^  of  or  concerning,  because  Jacob  is  immediately  afterwards  men- 
tioned in  the  third  person ;  but  this  might  be  the  case  consistently  with 
usage,  even  in  a  promise  made  dii'ectly  to  himself.  That  "itJ'X  refers  to 
the  remoter  antecedent,  must  be  obvious  to  every  reader ;  if  it  did  not,  Jacob 
would  be  described  as  the  redeemer  of  Abraham.  There  is  consequently 
not  the  slightest  ground  for  Lowth's  correction  of  the  text  by  reading 
7^?  instead  of  ^^  {the  God  of  the  house  of  Jacob).  There  is  no  need  of 
referring  the  redemption  of  Abraham  to  bis  removal  fi'om  a  land  of  idolatry. 
The  phrase  may  be  natm-ally  understood,  either  as  signifying  deliverance 
from  danger  and  the  di\dne  protection  generally,  or  in  a  higher  sense  as 
signifying  Abraham's  conversion  and  salvation.  Seeker  and  Lowth  read 
lian"'  for  nin'',  because  paleness  is  not  a  natural  indication  of  confusion. 
Other  interpreters  affirm  that  it  is ;  but  the  true  explanation  seems  to  be  that 
shame  and  fear  are  here  combined  as  strong  and  painful  emotions  from  which 
Jacob  should  be  henceforth  free.  Calvin  and  others  understand  by  Jacob 
here  the  patriarch  himself,  poetically  represented  as  beholding  and  sympa- 
thizing with  the  fortunes  of  his  own  descendants.  Most  interpreters  suppose 
the  name  to  be  employed  like  Israel  in  dhect  application  to  the  race  itself.  The 
reasons  for  these  contrary  opinions  will  be  moi-e  clear  from  the  following  verse. 

23.  For  in  his  seeing  [i.e.  when  he  sees)  his  cliildrcn,  the  work  of  my 
hands,  in  the  midst  of  him,  they  shall  sanctify  my  name,  and  sanctify  (or  yes, 
they  shall  sanctify)  the  Holy  One  of  Jacob,  and  the  Chd  of  Israel  they  shall 


470  ISAIAH  XXIX.  [^  er.  24. 

/ear.     The  verse  thus  translated,  according  to  its  simplest  and  most  ob- 
-vious  sense,  has  much  perplexed  interpreters.     The  difficulties  chiefly  urged 
are,  first,  that  Jacob  should  be  said  to  see  his  children  in  the  uiiiht  of  him- 
self (i3"]p3)  ;  secondly,  that  his  thus  seeing  them  should  be  the  occasion 
of  their  glorifying  God.     The  last  incongruity  is  only  partially  removed  by 
making  the  verb  indefinite,  as  Ewald  does  (wird  man  heiligeu) ;  for  it  may 
still  be  asked  why  Jacob  is  not  himself  represented  as  the  agent.    To  remove 
both   difficulties,  some  explain  the  Averse  to  mean,  when  he  (that  is)  his 
children  see  the  work  of  vnj  hands  (viz.,  my  providential  judgments),  they 
shall  sancti/i/,  &c.    It  is  evident,  however,  that  in  this  construction  the  men- 
tion of  the  children  is  entirely  superfluous,  and  throws  the  figures  of  the 
text  into  confusion.     Ewarld  accordingly  omits  1^1?*  as  a  gloss,  which  is 
merely  giving  up  the  attempt  at  explanation  in  despair.     Gesenius,  on  the 
other  hand,  in  his  translation,  cuts  the  knot  by  omitting  the  singular  pro- 
noun, and  making  his  children  the  sole  subject  of  the  verb.     What  follows 
is  suggested  as  a  possible  solution  of  this  exegetical  enigma.    We  have  seen 
reason,  wholly  independent  of  this  verse,  to  believe  that  the  immediately 
preceding  context  has  respect  to  the  excision  of  the  Jews  and  the  vocation 
of  the  Gentiles.     Now  the  latter  are  described  in  the  New  Testament  as 
Abraham's  (and  consequently  Jacob's)  spiritual  progeny,  as  such,  distin- 
guished  from  his   natural   descendants.     May  not  these    adventitious  or 
adopted  children  of  the  patriarch,  constituted  such  by  the  electing  grace  of 
God,  be  here  intended  by  the  phrase,  the  work  of  vuj  hands?     If  so,  the 
whole  may  thus  be  paraphrased :  when  he  (the  patriarch,  supposed  to  be 
again  alive,  and  gazing  at  his  off'spring)  shall  behold  his  children  (not  by 
nature,  but),  created  such  by  me,  in  the  midst  of  him  [i.e.  in  the  midst,  or 
in  the  place,  of  his  natural  descendants),  they  {i.e.  he  and  his  descendants 
jointly)  shall  unite  in  glorifying  God  as  the  author  of  this  great  revolution. 
This  explanation  of  the  verse  is  the  more  natural,  because  such  would  no 
doubt  be  the  actual  feelings  of  the  patriarch  and  his  descendants,  if  he 
should  really  be  raised  from  the  dead,  and  permitted  to  behold  what  God 
has  wrought,  with  respect  both  to  his  natural  and  spiritual  offspring.     To 
the  passage  thus  explained  a  strik'ng  parallel  is  found  in  chap.  xlix.  18-21, 
where  the  same  situation  and  emotions  here  ascribed  to  the  patriarch  are 
predicated  of  the  church  personified,  to  whom  the  Prophet  says,  "  Lift  up 
thine  eyes  round  about  and  behold,  all  these  gather  themselves  together, 
they  come  to  thee.    The  children  which  thou  shalt  have  after  thou  hast  lost 
the  others  shall  say,  &c.     Then  shalt  thou  say  in  thine  heart.  Who  hath 
begotten  me  these,  seeing  I  have  lost  my  children,  and  am  desolate,  a  cap- 
tive, and  removing  to  and  fro  ?    And  who  hath  brought  up  these  ?    Behold, 
I  alone  was  left;  these,  where  wei'e  they?"     For  the  use  of  the  word 
sanciifij,  in  reference  to  God  as  its  object,  see  the  note  on  chap.  viii.  13. 
The  Holy  One  of  Jacob  is  of  course  identical  in  meaning  with  the  Holy 
One  of  Israel,  which  last  phrase   is  explained  in  the  note  on  chap.  i.  4. 
The  emphatic  mention  of  the  Holy  One  of  Jacob  and  the  God  of  Israel  as 
the  object  to  be  sanctified,  implies  a  relation  still  existing  between  all  be- 
lievers and  their  spiritual  ancestrj',  as  well  as  a  relation  of  identity  between 
the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  church. 

24.  Then  shall  the  crriny  in  spirit  know  irisdom,  and  the  murmurers  (or 
rebels)  shall  receive  instruction.  These  words  would  be  perfectly  appropriate 
as  a  general  description  of  the  reclaiming  and  converting  influence  to  be 
exerted  upon  men  in  general.  But  under  this  more  vague  and  compre- 
hensive sense,  the  context,  and  especiall}'  the  verse  immediately  preceding, 


Yeb.  24.]  ISAIAH  XXX.  471 

seems  to  shew  that  there  is  one  more  specific  and  significant  included.  If 
the  foregoing  verse  predicts  the  reception  of  the  Gentiles  into  the  family  of 
Israel,  and  if  this  reception,  as  we  learn  from  the  New  Testament,  was 
connected  with  the  disinheriting  of  most  of  the  natural  descendants,  who 
are,  nevertheless,  to  be  restored  hereafter,  then  the  promise  of  this  final 
restoration  is  a  stroke  still  wanting  to  complete  the  fine  prophetic  picture 
BOW  before  us.  That  finishing  stroke  is  given  in  this  closing  verse,  which 
adds  to  the  promise  that  the  Gentiles  shall  become  the  heirs  of  Israel, 
another  that  the  heirs  of  Israel  according  to  the  flesh  shall  themselves  be 
restored  to  their  long-lost  heritage,  not  by  excluding  their  successors  in 
their  turn,  but  by  peaceful  and  brotherl}^  participation  with  them.  This 
application  of  the  last  part  of  the  chapter  to  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  and 
the  restoration  of  the  Jews  has  been  founded,  as  the  reader  will  observe, 
not  on  any  forced  accommodation  of  particular  expressions,  but  on  various 
detached  points,  all  combining  to  confirm  this  exegetical  hypothesis  as  the 
only  one  which  furnishes  a  key  to  the  consistent  exposition  of  the  chapter 
as  a  concatenated  prophecy,  without  abrupt  transitions  or  a  mixture  of 
incongruous  materials. 


CHAPTEE  XXX. 

This  chapter  contains  an  exposure  of  the  sin  and  folly  of  ancient  Israel 
in  seeking  foreign  aid  against  their  enemies,  to  the  neglect  of  God,  their 
rightful  sovereign  and  their  only  strong  protector.  The  costume  of  the 
prophecy  is  borrow^ed  from  the  circumstances  and  events  of  Isaiah's  own 
times.  Thus  Egypt  is  mentioned  in  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  as  the 
chosen  ally  of  the  people,  and  Assyi-ia  in  the  last  part  as  the  dreaded 
enemy.  There  is  no  need,  however,  of  restricting  what  is  said  to  that 
period  exclusively.  The  presumption,  as  in  all  such  cases,  is,  that  the 
description  was  designed  to  be  more  general,  although  it  may  contain  allu- 
sions to  particular  emergencies.  Reliance  upon  human  aid,  involving  a 
distrust  of  the  divine  promises,  was  a  crying  sin  of  the  ancient  church,  not 
at  one  time  only,  but  throughout  her  history.  To  denounce  such  sins,  and 
threaten  them  with  condign  punishment,  was  no  small  part  of  the  prophetic 
office.  The  chronological  hypotheses  assumed  by  different  writers  with 
respect  to  this  chapter  are  erroneous,  only  because  too  specific  and  exclu- 
sive. Thus  Jerome  refers  it  to  the  conduct  of  the  Jews  in  the  days  of 
Jeremiah,  Kimchi  to  their  conduct  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  Jarchi  to  the  con- 
duct of  the  ten  tribes  in  the  reign  of  Hoshea.  Vitringa  takes  a  step  in  the 
right  direction,  by  combining  Israel  and  Judah  as  included  in  the  censure. 
Some  of  the  later  writers  assume  the  existence  of  an  Egyi:ttian  party  in  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah,  who  negotiated  with  that  power  against  the  will  or 
without  the  knowledge  of  the  king.  But  even  if  this  fact  can  be  infeiTed 
from  Rabshakeh's  h^^pothetical  reproach  in  chap,  xxxvi.  6,  it  does  not 
follow  that  this  was  the  sole  subject  or  occasion  of  the  prophecy.  It  was 
clearl}'  intended  to  reprove  the  sin  of  seeking  foreign  aid  without  divine 
permission ;  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  terms  of  the  reproof  confining  it  to 
any  single  case  of  the  ofience.  This  chapter  may  be  divided  into  three 
parts.  In  the  first,  the  Prophet  shews  the  sin  and  folly  of  relying  upon 
Egypt,  no  doubt  for  protection  against  Assyria,  as  these  were  the  two  great 
powers  between  which  Israel  was  continually  oscillating,  almost  constantly 
at  war  with  one  and  in  alliance  with  the  other,  vers.  1-7.  In  the  last  part, 
he  describes  the  Assyrian  power  as  broken  by  an  immediate  divine  inter- 


472  ISAIAH  XXX.  ,^  ki;.  1-4. 

position,  precluding  the  necessity  of  any  human  aid,  vers.  27-33.  In  the 
larger  intervening  part,  he  shews  the  connection  of  this  distrust  of  God  and 
rehance  on  the  creature  with  the  general  character  and  spiritual  state  of  the 
people,  as  imwilling  to  receive  instruction,  as  dishonest  and  oppressive, 
making  severe  judgments  necessary,  as  a  prelude  to  the  glorious  change 
which  God  would  eventually  bring  to  pass,  vers.  8-26. 

1.  Woe  to  the  disobedient  children,  saith  Jehovah,  (so  disobedient  as) 
to  form  (or  execute)  a  plan  and  not  from  me,  and  to  neare  a  ueh,  but  not  (of) 
my  Spirit,  for  the  sake  of  addinr/  sin  to  sin.  Here,  as  in  chap.  i.  2,  Israel's 
filial  relation  to  Jehovah  is  particularly  mentioned  as  an  agravation  of  his 
ingratitude  and  disobedience.  The  iniinitives  express  the  respect  in  which, 
or  the  result  with  which,  they  had  rebelled  against  Jehovah.  The  relative 
construction  of  the  English  Version  does  not  materially  change  the  sense. 

The  phrase  '"IDDP  Tjb^?  has  been  variously  explained.  The  Peshito  makes 
it  mean  to  pour  out  libations,  probably  with  reference  to  some  ancient  mode 
of  ratifying  covenants,  and  the  Septuagint  accordingl}'  translates  it  iiroir^aaTs 
awOrixag,  Cocceius  applies  it  to  the  casting  of  molten  images  {adfunden- 
duni  fusile),  De  Dieu  to  the  moulding  of  designs  or  plots.  ICimchi  and 
Calvin  derive  the  words  from  the  root  to  cover,  and  suppose  the  idea  hero 
expressed  to  be  that  of  concealment.  Ewald  follows  J.  D.  Michaelis  in 
making  the  phrase  mean  to  weave  a  iveh,  which  agrees  well  with  the  context, 
and  is  favoured  by  the  similar  use  of  the  same  verb  and  noim  in  chap.  xxv. 
7.  Ivnobel's  objection,  that  this  figure  is  suited  only  to  a  case  of  treachery, 
has  no  force,  as  the  act  of  seeking  foreign  aid  was  treasonable  under  the 
theocracj^  and  the  design  appears  to  have  been  formed  and  executed 
secretly.  (Compare  chap.  xxix.  15,  where  the  reference  may  be  to  the 
same  transaction.)  Vitringa,  who  refers  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  to  the 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  supposes  the  sin  of  seeking  foreign  aid  to  bo 
here  described  as  added  to  the  previous  sin  of  worshipping  the  golden  calf. , 
Hitzig  supposes  the  first  sin  to  be  that  of  forsaking  Jehovah,  the  second  that 
of  seeking  human  aid.  The  simple  meaning  seems,  however,  to  be  that  of 
multiplying  or  accumulating  guilt.  D'^IIID  is  strongly  rendered  by  the  Sep- 
tuagint apostates,  and  by  the  Vulgate  deserters,  both  which  ideas  may  be 
considered  as  involved  in  the  translation  rebels  or  rebellious,  disobedient  or 
refractor3^ 

2.  Tliose  walking  to  go  down  to  Egypt,  and  my  mouth  they  have  not  con- 
sulted (literally  ashed),  to  take  refuge  in  the  strength  of  Pharaoh,  and  to  trust 
in  the  shadow  of  Egypt.  Motion  towards  Egypt  is  commonly-  spoken  of  in 
Scripture  as  downward.  C^^H  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  setting  out 
or  setting  forward  ;  but  De  Wette  and  Ewald  omit  it  altogether,  or  con- 
sider it  as  joined  with  the  other  verb  to  express  the  simple  idea  of  descent. 
Hendewerk  takes  mouth  as  a  specific  designation  of  the  Prophet,  which  is 
wholly  unnecessary.  To  ash  the  moidh,  or  at  the  mouth,  of  the  Lord,  is  a 
phrase  used  elsewhere  in  the  sense  of  seeking  a  divine  decision  or  response. 

3.  And  the  strength  of  Egyj^t  shall  be  to  you  fur  sluone,  and  the  trust  in  the 

shadow  of  Egypt  for  confusion.  7  '^^"|'  may  here  be  taken  in  its  frequent 
sense  of  becoming  or  being  converted  into.  The  common  version  of  the  first 
^  by  therefore  changes  the  idiomatic  form  of  the  original  without  necessity. 

4.  For  his  chiefs  are  in  Zoan,  and  his  ambassadors  arrive  at  Hancs. 
For  the  site  and  political  importance  of  Zoa^i  or  Tanis,  see  the  commentary 
on  chap.  xix.  11.  For  IV^J^  DJH,  the  Seventy  seem  to  have  read  IVJ''*  D3n, 
they  shall  labour  in  vain.     This  reading  is  also  found  in  a  few  manuscripts 


Yer.  5,  6.]  ISAIAH  XXX.  ^73 

and  approved  by  Lowtli  and  J.  D.  Michaelis.  The  latter  thinks  it  possible, 
however,  that  D:n  may  denote  the  Pyramids.  The  Targum  changes  Banes 
into  Tahjyanhes,  and  Grotius  regards  the  former  as  a  mere  contraction  of 
the  latter,  which  is  also  the  conjectm-e  of  Champollion.  Vitringa  identifies  the 
D.;n  of  Isaiah  with  the  "Avvsigoi  Herodotus.  This  combination  is  approved 
by  Gesenius  and  the  later  writers,  who,  moreover,  identify  the  Greek  and 
Hebrew  forms  with  the  Egyptian  Hnes  and  the  Ai"abic  Ehncs.  The  city  so 
called  was  in  Middle  Egypt,  south  of  Memphis.  The  older  writers  almost 
unanimously  understand  this  verse  as  relating  to  the  envoys  of  Israel  and 
Judah.  Clericus  indeed  refers  the  suffixes  to  Egypt  or  to  Pharaoh,  but 
without  a  change  of  meaning,  as  he  supposes  the  Egyptian  envoys  to  be 
such  as  were  sent  to  meet  the  others,  or  to  convey  the  answer  to  their  ap- 
plications. But  some  of  the  late  interpreters  adopt  the  same  construction 
with  a  total  change  of  meaning.  Hitzig  regards  the  verse  as  a  contemptu- 
ous description  of  the  naiTOW  boundaries  and  insignificance  of  Egypt.  His 
(Pharaoh's)  princes  are  in  Zoan  (the  capital),  a7id  his  heralds  (the  bearers 
of  his  royal  mandates)  only  reach  to  Hemes  (a  town  of  Middle  Egypt.) 
The  unnatural  and  arbitrary  character  of  this  inteii^retation  will  appear  from 
the  cmious  fact  that  Ewald,  who  adopts  the  same  construction  of  the  pro- 
nouns, makes  the  whole  verse  a  concession  of  the  magnitude  and  strength 
of  the  Egyptian  monarchy.  Although  his  j^rinces  are  at  Zoan  (in  Lower 
Egypt)  and  his  heralds  reach  to  Hanes  (much  fm'ther  south).  Knobel  ob- 
jects to  these  constructions,  that  the  phrase,  his  princes  are  at  Zoan,  is 
unmeaning  and  superfluous.  He  therefore  resuscitates  the  Septuagint  read- 
ing lyj''''  DJn,  and  makes  the  whole  mean,  that  the  chiefs  of  Pharaoh  are  still 
at  Zoan  (/.  e.  remain  inactive  there),  and  that  his  messengers  or  commis- 
saries labour  in  vain  to  raise  the  necessary  forces.  From  these  ingenious 
extravagances  it  is  satisfactory  to  fall  back  on  the  old  interpretation,  which 
is  also  that  of  Gesenius,  Umbreit,  and  Hendewerk,  with  this  modification 
in  the  case  of  the  latter,  that  he  supposes  Zoan  and  Hanes  to  be  mentioned 
as  the  royal  seats  of  Sevechus  and  Tii'hakah,  to  both  of  whom  the  applica- 
tion may  have  been  addressed. 

6.  All  are  ashamed  of  a  people  luho  cannot  profit  them  [a  people)  not  for 
help  and  not  for  profit,  hut  for  shame,  and  also  for  disgrace.  Lowth  inserts 
DN  after  ""2,  on  the  authority  of  four  manuscripts.  But  the  *3  is  itself  here 
equivalent  to  an  adversative  particle  in  English,  although  it  really  retains 
its  usual  meaning,  for,  because.  The  Hebrew  construction  is,  they  are  not 
a  profit  or  a  help,  for  (on  the  contraiy)  they  are  a  disgrace  and  a  reproach. 
Gesenius  regards  t^'^XQii  as  an  incorrect  orthography  for  Ei'^^in  ;  but  Maurer 
and  Knobel  read  it  E^'^N^n,  and  assume  a  root  5^i<3  synomnnous  with  EJ'13. 

The  ^y  in  the  first  clause  has  its  very  frequent  meaning  of  concerning,  on 
accouid  of. 

6.  The  burden  (f  the  leasts  of  the  south,  in  a  land  of  suffering  and  dis- 
tress, xohence  {are)  the  adder  and  tlie  fiery  flying  serpent  ;  they  are  carrying 
(or  about  to  carry)  on  the  shoulder  of  young  asses  their  uealth,  and  on  the 
hump  of  camels  their  treasures,  to  a  peo^ile  (or  for  the  sake  of  a  people)  wlio 
cannot  profit.  The  Prophet  sees  the  ambassadors  of  Israel  carrying  costly 
presents  through  the  waste  howling  wilderness,  for  the  purpose  of  securing 
the  Egyptian  alliance.  Gill  applies  the  description  to  the  emigration  of 
the  Jews  into  Egv'pt  in  the  days  of  Jeremiah.  This  may  be  alluded  to, 
but  cannot  be  the  exclusive  subject  of  the  passage.  The  Septuagint  tran- 
slates ^'f^  by  ooaaig,  and  converts  the  first  clause  into  a  title  or  inscrip- 


474  16A1A11  XXX.  lVer.  G. 

tion.  Schmidius  and  J.  II.  ]\Iicbaolis  regard  this  as  the  begiuuiug  of  a 
special  prophecy,  or  subdivision  of  the  greater  prophecy,  agaiust  the  south- 
ern Jews  who  were  nearest  to  Egypt.  Henderson  also  thinks  it  incontro- 
vertible, that  this  is  the  title  or  inscription  of  the  record  which  the  Prophet 
is  afterwards  commanded  to  made.  The  latest  German  writers,  as  might 
have  been  expected,  reject  the  clause  as  spurious,  Hendewcrk  and  Ewald 
expunging  it  wholly  from  the  text,  while  the  others  include  it  in  brackets 
as  of  doubtful  authenticity.  These  critical  conclusions  all  involve  the  sup- 
position, that  some  ancient  copyist  or  reader  of  the  Prophet,  imagining  a  new 
subdivision  to  begin  here,  introduced  this  title,  as  the  same  or  another  hand 
had  done  in  chaps,  xiii.  1,  xv.  1,  xvii.  1,  xix.  1,  xxi.  1,  11,  13,  xxii.  1, 
xxiii.  1.  The  number  of  these  alleged  interpolations,  far  from  adding  to  the 
probability  of  the  assumption,  makes  it  more  improbable  in  evei-y  instance 
where  it  is  resorted  to.  In  this  case  there  is  nothing  to  suggest  the  idea  of 
a  change  of  subject  or  a  new  division,  if  the  title  be  omitted.  How  then 
can  the  interpolation  bo  accounted  for  ?  If  it  be  said  that  we  are  not  bound 
to  account  for  the  absurdity  of  ancient  interpolators,  the  answer  is  that  we 
are  just  as  little  bound  to  believe  in  theii*  existence.  The  truth  appears  to 
be  that  the  interpretation  of  this  clause  as  an  inscription  is  entirely 
imaginary.  Even  in  the  other  cases  cited  we  have  seen  that  the  assumption 
of  a  formal  title  maj'  be  pushed  too  far.  But  here  it  is  wholh'  out  of  place. 
It  is  surely  an  unreasonable  supposition,  that  the  Prophet  could  not  put  the 
word  K^'^  at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence  without  converting  it  into  a  title. 
The  most  natural  construction  of  the  first  clause  is  to  take  it  as  an  exclama- 
tion [0  the  burden  of  the  beasts!  what  a  burden  to  the  beasts!),  or  as  an  abso- 
lute nominative  {as  to  the  burden  of  the  beasts).  The  beasts  meant  are  not  the 
lions  and  the  vipers  of  the  next  clause  (Hitzig),  but  the  asses  and  the 
camels  of  the  one  following,  called  beasts  of  the  south  because  travelling  in 
that  direction.  The  land  meant  is  not  Egypt  (Vitringa),  though  described 
by  Ammianus  Marcellinus  as  peculiarly  aboundiBg  in  venomous  reptiles 
(serpentes  alit  innumeras,  ultra  omnem  perniciem  sa3vientes,  basiliscos  et 
amphisba3nas  et  scytalas  et  acontias  et  dipsadas  et  viperas  aliasque  com- 
plures),  nor  the  land  of  Israel  as  the  nurse  of  lion-like  men  or  heroes  (J.  D. 
Michaelis),  but  the  interjacent  desert  described  by  Moses  in  similiar  terms 
(Deut.  i.  19,  viii.  lo).  The  preposition  ?,  meaning  strictly  in,  might  in 
this  connection  denote  either  through  or  into,  but  the  former  seems  to  be 
required  by  the  context.  It  follows  of  course  that  HplVI  mv  pN  cannot 
mean  a  land  of  opjiression,  in  allusion  either  to  the  bondage  of  the  Hebrews 
or  to  that  of  the  natives  (Vitringa),  nor  a  land  compressed  and  narrow  in 
shape  (Clericus),  but  must  denote  a  land  of  suffering,  danger,  and  privation, 
such  as  the  great  Arabiau  desert  is  to  travellers.  Those  who  make  )*"IS<  to 
mean  Egypt  explain  DHD  as  referring  rather  to  the  people  than  the  country; 
but  if  the  land  referred  to  is  the  desert,  it  must  be  explained,  with  the 
latest  German  writers,  as  either  a  poetical  licence  or  a  grammatical  anomaly. 
The  general  meaning  of  the  phrase,  as  all  agree,  is  whence.  It  is  also 
agreed  that  two  designations  of  the  lion  are  here  used;  but  how  they 
mutually  differ  is  disputed.  Calvin  has  Ico  et  Ico  major;  Cocceius,  leo 
animosus  et  annosus.  Luther  makes  the  distinction  one  of  sex  (Iio7is  and 
lionesses),  which  is  now  regarded  as  the  true  distinction,  though  the  first  of 
the  two  Hebrew  words,  since  Bochart,  has  been  commonly  explained  to  mean 
the  lioness.  So  Clericus,  Icccna  et  leo  violentus,  and  all  the  recent  writers 
except  Hitzig,  who  makes  both  the  words  generic  [Leu  und  Lijive).  HVDK 
may  be  translated  adder,  viiicr,  asp,  or  by  any  other  term  denoting  a  venom- 


Vee.  7,  8.]  ISAIAH  XXX.  475 

ous  aud  deadly  serpent.  For  the  meaning  of  t]S"iyo  ^1^1^,  see  the  note  on 
chap.  xiv.  29.  The  lions  and  vipers  of  this  verse  are  not  symbolical  descrip- 
tions of  the  Egyptians  (Junius),  but  a  poetical  description  of  the  desert. 
Clericus  makes  even  rilDni  (Behemoth),  an  emblem  of  Egypt,  and  tran- 
slates the  clause  (as  an  inscription),  oratio  pronunciata  de  meridiano 
hippopotamo !  CIIV  or  D''~)''y,  which  Lowth  translates  too  vaguely  young 
cattle,  denotes  more  specifically  young  asses,  or  it  may  be  used  as  a  poetical 
designation  of  asses  in  general.  That  ^l;^'2■^  signifies  the  hump  or  bunch  of 
the  camel,  as  explained  in  the  Vulgate  (super  gibbum  cameli),  the  Peshito, 
and  the  Targum,  is  clear  from  the  context,  but  not  from  etymolog}^  as  to 
which  interpreters  are  much  divided.  The  old  Jews  traced  the  word  to  ^2"t, 
honey  (because  sometimes  applied  for  medicinal  purposes),  while  Henderson 
explains  it  by  an  Arabic  analogy  as  meaning  the  natural  furniture  of  the 
animal.  The  /J^  before  Oy  does  not  seem  to  be  a  mere  equivalent  to  ?^, 
but  rather,  as  in  ver.  5,  to  mean  on  account  of ,  for  the  sake  of. 

7.  And  Egypt  (or  the  Egi/ptians)  in  vain  and  to  no  purpose  shall  they  help. 
Therefore  I  cry  concernuig  this,  their  strength  is  to  sit  still.  This,  which  is 
the  common  English  Version  of  the  last  clause,  is  substantially  the  same 
with  Calvin's.  Later  writers  have  rejected  it,  however,  on  the  ground,  that 
^n^i,  according  to  etjniiology  and  usage,  does  not  mean  strength  but  indo- 
Unce.  On  this  supposition,  the  Vulgate  version  would  be  more  correct 
(superbia  tantum  est,  quiesce),  naJi'  being  then  explained  as  the  imperative 
of  ni^*  to  cease,  to  rest.  This  construction  is  exactly  in  accordance  with 
the  Masoretic  accents,  which  connect  QH  with  SHI  and  disjoin  it  from  riQtJ', 
But  the  last  word,  as  now  pointed,  must  be  either  a  noun  or  an  infinitive. 
Since  3n"l  occurs  elsewhere  as  a  name  of  Eg}^t,  most  of  the  modern  wi-iters 
take  inxip  in  the  sense  of  naming,  which  is  fully  justified  by  usage,  and 
understand  the  clause  as  contrasting  the  pretensions  of  Egypt  with  its 
actual  performances ;  the  two  antagonist  ideas  being  those  of  arrogance,  or 
insolence  and  quiescence,  or  inaction.  Thus  Gesenius  translates  it  Gross- 
viaid  das  still  sitzt,  and  Barnes,  the  blusterer  that  sitteih  still.  Besides  the 
obscurity  of  the  descriptive  epithets,  the  construction  is  perplexed  by  the 
use,  first  of  the  feminine  singular  (nXT),  and  then  of  the  masculine  plural 
(QH),  both  in  refei'ence  to  one  subject.  The  common  solution  is  that  the 
former  has  respect  to  the  country,  and  the  latter  to  the  people.  The  general 
meaning  of  the  clause  mav  be  considered  as  determined  by  the  one  before  it. 
?2n  and  P''"l  are  nouns  used  adverbially.  Ewald  introduces  in  the  last 
clause  a  paronomasia  which  is  not  in  the  original  {Tmtzige  das  ist  Frostige). 

8.  And  noio  go,  ivrite  it  with  them  on  a  tablet  and  inscribe  tt  in  a  book,  and 
let  it  be  for  a  future  day,  for  ever,  to  eternity.  This,  like  the  similar  pre- 
caution in  chap.  viii.  1,  was  intended  to  verify  the  fact  of  the  prediction 
after  the  event,  ^^i^  seems  to  include  the  ideas  of  before  them  and  among 
them.  Knobel  infers  from  this  command,  that  the  Prophet's  house  must 
have  been  upon  the  street  or  square,  in  which  the  prediction  was  orally 
delivered.  Most  interpreters  suppose  two  distinct  inscriptions  to  be  here 
requhed,  one  on  a  solid  tablet  for  public  exhibition,  and  the  other  on  parch- 
ment or  the  like  for  preservation.  But  Gesenius  more  naturally  under- 
stands the  words  niP  and  "l£D  as  equivalents,  which  is  the  less  improbable, 
because  if  a  distinction  were  intended,  pp^  would  no  doubt  have  been  con- 
nected, not  with  1SD  but  with  ni7.  Some  of  the  ancient  versions  exchange 
^y  for  'ly  (a  testimony  for  ever),  which  is  adopted  by  several  interpreters  on 
the  authority  of  Deut.  xxxi.  19,  21,  26,  where  the  same  combination  occurs. 


476  ISAIAH  XXX.  [Ver.  9-12. 

Ewald  adds  that  the  idea  of  testimony  is  essential,  and  Knobel  that  the  con- 
currence of  "^V.  ly  would  be  cacophonus. 

9.  For  a  people  of  rebellion  (a  rebellious  people)  is  it,  lyimj  (or  denyimj) 
children,  children  {who)  are  not  tviUing  to  learn  the  law  oj  Jehovah.  By 
denying  children  Ivimchi  understands  such  as  deny  their  lather,  Gill,  such 
as  falsely  pretend  to  be  his  children.  Hitzig  gives  the  phrase  a  more 
specific  meaning,  as  denoting  that  they  would  deny  the  fact  of  the  prediction 
without  some  such  attestation  as  the  one  required  in  the  preceding  verse. 
The  English  Version  makes  this  verse  state  the  substance  of  the  inscription, 
that  this  is  a  rebellious  people,  &c. 

10.  Who  say  to  the  seers,  Ye  shall  not  see,  and  to  the  vieioers,  ye  shall 
not  vieiv  for  us  right  things ;  speak  unto  us  smooth  things,  vieto  deceits. 
There  is  great  difiiculty  in  translating  this  verse  litei-ally,  as  the  two  Hebrew 
verbs,  meaning  to  see,  have  no  equivalents  in  English,  which  of  them- 
selves suggest  the  idea  of  prophetic  revelation.  The  common  version  (see 
not,  2}rophesy  not),  although  it  conveys  the  true  sense  substantially,  leaves 
out  of  view  the  near  relation  of  the  two  verbs  to  each  other  in  the  ori- 
ginal. In  the  translation  above  given,  rietu  is  introduced  merely  as  a 
Bynonyme  of  see,  both  being  here  used  to  express  supernatural  or  prophetic 
vision.  With  this  use  of  the  verbal  noun  (seer)  we  are  all  familiar  thi-ough 
the  English  Bible.  Clericus  translates  both  verbs  in  the  present  (non 
videtis),  which  would  make  the  verse  a  simple  denial  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  prophets,  or  of  the  truth  of  their  communications.  Most  interpreters 
prefer  the  imperative  form,  which  is  certainly  implied  ;  but  the  safest 
because  the  most  exact  construction  is  Luther's,  which  adheres  to  the  strict 
sense  of  the  future  {ye  shall  not  see).  This  is  of  course  not  given  as  the 
actual  language  of  the  people,  but  as  the  tendency  and  spirit  of  their 
acts.  It  is  an  ingenious  but  extravagant  idea  of  Cocceius,  that  the  first 
clause  of  this  verse  condemns  the  prohibition  of  the  Scriptures  by  anti- 
christian  teachers,  xuho  say  to  those  seeing  ye  shall  not  see,  &c.  Even  if  the 
first  clause  could  be  naturally  thus  explained,  the  same  sense  could  not  pos- 
sibly be  put  upon  the  others.  Smooth  things  or  words  is  a  common  figura- 
tive tei-m  for  flatteries.     Luther's  expressive  version  is  j^'^'^och  soft  to  us. 

11.  Depart  from  the  ivay,  swerve/mm  the  path,  cause  to  cease  from  before 
us  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  The  request  is  not  (as  Gill  suggests)  that  they 
would  get  out  of  the  j^eople's  way,  so  as  no  longer  to  prevent  their  going 
on  in  sin,  but  that  they  would  get  out  of  their  own  way,  i.  e.  wander  from 
it  or  forsake  it.  This  way  is  explained  by  Gesenius  to  be  the  way  of  piety 
and  virtue,  but  by  Hitzig  more  con-ectly  as  the  way  which  they  had  hitherto 
pursued  in  the  discharge  of  their  prophetic  functions.  Cause  to  cease  from 
before  us,  i.  e.  remove  from  our  sight.  It  was  a  common  opinion  with  the 
older  WTiters,  that  this  clause  alludes  to  Isaiah's  frequent  repetition  of  the 
name  Holy  One  of  Israel,  and  contains  a  request  that  they  might  hear  it 
no  more.  ]^ut  the  modern  interpreters  appear  to  be  agreed  that  the  allu- 
sion is  not  to  the  name  but  the  person.  Cocceius  understands  the  clause 
as  relating  to  the  antichristian  exclusion  of  Christ  from  the  church  as  its 
sanctifier.     The  form  of  the  preposition  (*.3p)  is  peculiar  to  this  place. 

12.  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  Decausc  of  your  rejecting 
(or  desjnsing)  this  v>ord,  and  (because)  ye  have  trusted  in  oppression  and 
perverseness,  and  have  relied  thereon.  On  the  hypothesis  already  stated, 
that  the  people  had  expressed  a  particular  dislike  to  the  title  Iloiy  One  of 
Israel,  Piscator  supposes  that  the  Prophet  here  intentionally  uses  it,  as  if 
in  defiance  of  thcii-  impious  beUef.     GUI  even  thinks  that  this  word  may 


Yer.  13,  14.]  ISAIAH  XXX.  VIl 

mean  ihis  name.  But  all  this  seems  to  limit  the  meaning  of  the  terms  too 
much.  The  u^ord  here  mentioned  is  no  doubt  the  law  of  ver.  9,  both  being 
common  epithets  of  revelation  generall}^  and  of  particular  divine  communi- 
cations. (See  the  note  on  chap.  ii.  3).  J.  D.  MichaeHs  ingeniously  con- 
verts the  last  clause  into  a  description  of  Egypt,  as  itself  oppressed  and 
therefore  unfit  to  be  the  protector  of  Israel.  But  in  order  to  extract  this 
meaning  from  the  words,  he  is  forced  into  an  arbitrary  change  of  the  point- 
ing. Houbigant  and  Lowth,  instead  of  p^V  read  ^'y>V,  thus  making  it  synony- 
mous with  TvJ,  The  latter  word  seems  to  denote  perverseness  or  moral 
oblicjuity  in  general.  It  is  rendered  in  a  strong  idiomatic  form  by  Hitzig 
(Verschmitztheit)  and  Ewald  (Querwege). 

13)  Therefore  shall  this  iniquity  be  to  you  like  a  breach  fall  in;  f  (or  ready 
to  fall)  swelling  out  in  a  hiyh  urill,  whose  breaking  may  come  suddenli/,  at 
{any)  instant.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  by  another  arbitrary  change  of  text,  reads 
this  help  instead  of  this  iniquity.  The  image  is  that  of  a  wall  which  is  rent 
or  cracked,  and,  as  Gill  says,  bellies  out  and  bulges.  The  ver^e  is  explained 
with  great  unanimity  by  the  interpreters  until  we  come  to  Hitzig,  who  puts 
an  entirely  new  face  upon  the  simile.  He  objects  with  some  truth  to  the 
old  interpi-etation  that  it  assumes  without  authority  a  future  meanin^^  of 
the  participle  /??J,  and  that  it  makes  the  breach  or  chasm  swell  and  fall, 
instead  of  the  wall  itself.  He  then  infers,  from  the  use  of  }*."?3  in  2  Sam. 
V.  20,  and  of  ny^n  in  Isaiah  Ixiv.  1,  that  the  former  here  denotes  a  tor- 
rent (Waldstrom),/aJ//»//  upon  (/.  e.  attacking,  as  in  Josh.  xi.  7),  and  swell- 
ing against  a  high  wall.  The  weakest  point  in  this  ingenious  combination 
is  the  necessity  of  construing  73J  with  ?,  from  which  it  is  separated  by 
ny;?p.  To  remove  this  difficulty,  Hendewerk,  adopting  the  same  general 
construction,  takes  the  whole  phrase  7?J  f.pS  in  the  sense  of  waterfall.  The 
later  German  writers,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  have  returned  to  the 
old  intei"pretation.  Ewald,  however,  to  remove  the  first  of  Hitzig's  objec- 
tions, applies  ^?i  not  to  the  falling  of  the  wall,  but  to  the  sinking  or  ex- 
tension downwards  of  the  breach  itself  [ein  sinkender  Riss) ;  while  Knobel 
gains  the  same  end  by  explaining  fp?  to  be  not  the  aperture  or  chasm,  but 
the  portion  of  the  wall  afiected  by  it.  This  last  explanation  had  been  pre- 
viously and  independently  proposed  by  Henderson,  who  says  that  the  word 
here  means  properly  the  piece  forming  one  side  of  the  breach  or  rent.  But 
this  is  really  a  mere  concession  that  the  strict  and  usual  sense  is  inappro- 
priate. With  respect  to  the  main  point,  that  the  figures  were  intended  to 
express  the  idea  of  sudden  destruction,  there  is  and  can  be  no  diversity  of 
judgment.  In  favour  of  the  old  interpretation,  as  compared  with  Hitzig's, 
it  may  be  suggested,  that  the  former  conveys  the  idea  of  a  gi-adual  yet 
sudden  catastrophe,  which  is  admirably  suited  to  the  context.  It  is  also 
true,  as  Umbreit  well  observes,  that  the  idea  of  a  downfall  springincr  from 
internal  causes  is  more  appropriate  in  this  connection,  than  that  of  mere 
external  violence,  however  overwhelming. 

14.  And  it  (the  wall)  is  broken  like  the  breaking  of  a  potter's  vessel  (any 
utensil  of  earthenwhere),  broken  unsparingly  (or  without  mercy),  so  that  there 
is  not  found  in  its  fracture  (or  among  its  fragments)  a  sherd  to  take  up  fire 
from,  a  hearth,  and  to  skim  (or  dip  top)  water  from  a  pool.  The  fia'st  words 
strictly  mean,  he  breaks  it,  not  the  enemy,  as  Ivnobel  supposes,  which  would 
imply  an  allusion  to  the  breach  made  in  a  siege,  but  he  indefinitely,  i.  e. 
some  one  (Cocceius  :  aliquis/ranget),  which  may  be  resolved  into  a  passive 
form  as  in  the  Vulgate  (comminuetur).     It  is  wholly  gratuitous  to  read 


478  ISAIAH  XXX.  [Ver.  15-17. 

np2t'1.  The  phrase  ^bD-  ^"^  '^^^?  exhibits  a  construction  wholly  foreign 
from  our  idiom,  and  therefore  not  susceptible  of  literal  translation.  The 
nearest  approach  to  it  is,  hreahing  he  spareth  not  (or  will  not  spare).  Sherd 
is  an  old  English  word,  now  seldom  used,  meaning  a  broken  piece  of  pot- 
tery or  earthenware,  and  found  more  frequently  in  the  compound  form  of 
potsherd.  A  potter's  vessel,  literally,  vessel  of  the  potters.  Hpn,  except  in 
a  single  instance,  is  always  applied  to  the  taking  up  of  fire,  ^^n  is  strictly 
to  remove  the  surface  of  a  liquid,  but  may  here  have  greater  latitude  of 
meaning.  For  n5|  the  English  version  has  jyit,  Lowth  cistern,  and  most 
other  writers  ivell ;  but  in  Ezek.  xlvii.  11  it  denotes  a  marsh  ov  pool. 
Ewald  supposes  a  particular  allusion  to  the  breaking  of  a  poor  man's 
earthen  pitcher,  an  idea  which  had  been  suggested  long  before  by  Gill ; 
as  poor  people  are  tiont  to  do,  to  take  fire  fro)n  the  hearth,  and  water  out  of  a 
well  in  a  piece  of  brol;en  pitcher. 

15,  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  the  Iloli/  One  of  Israel,  in  returning 
(or  conversion)  and  rest  shall  ye  be  saved,  in  remaining  quiet  and  in  confi- 
dence shall  be  your  strength  :  and  ye  would  not  (or  rvere  not  loilling).  This 
overwhelming  judgment  would  be  strictly  just  because  they  had  been 
fully  admonished  of  the  way  of  safety.  Here  again  Gill  supposes  a  peculiar 
significance  in  the  repetition  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  The  rabbinical 
explanation  of  ^3•1t^'  as  a  derivative  from  3^'^  is  gratuitous  and  certainly  not 
justified  by  Num.  x.  36.  Grotius  understands  by  returning  retrocession 
from  the  unlawful  measures  and  negotiations.  The  Targum  gives  it  the 
more  general  sense  of  returning  to  the  law,  which  agrees  in  substance  with 
the  common  explanation  of  the  term  as  meaning  a  return  to  God  by  repent- 
ance and  conversion.  (For  the  spiritual  usage  of  the  verb,  see  the  note  on 
chap.  i.  27.)  This  sense  Gesenius  mentions  as  admissible  although  he 
prefers  to  assume  a  hendiadys,  by  returning  to  repose,  which  is  needless  and 
unnatural.  Hitzig's  idea  that  the  word  denotes  returning  to  one's  self  may 
be  considered  as  included  in  the  other. 

16.  And  ye  said,  No,  for  ice  will  flee  iipon  horses  ;  therefore  shall  ye  flee  ; 
'and  upon  the  swift  loill  tee  ride  :  therefore  shall  your  pursuers  be  swift.    Calvin 

points  out  a  double  sense  of  D-13  in  this  verse,  and  Ihe  modern  interpreters 
express  it  in  their  versions,  the  most  successful  being  that  of  Ewald,  • 
w'ho  employs  the  kindred  forms  fliegen  and  fliehen.  This  can  be  per- 
fectly copied  in  English  by  the  use  of  fig  and  jfee ;  but  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  this  is  not  a  mere  refinement,  as  the  Hebrew  verb  in  every  other 
case  means  to  Jlee,  and  the  hope  here  ascribed  to  the  people  is  not  simply 
that  of  "oing  swiftly,  but  of  escaping  from  the  dangers  threatened.  In  ?i^ 
and  ^^.P,,  the  primary  sense  of  lightness  is  very  often  merged  into  that  of 
rapid  motion.  Knobel  discovers  an  additional  paronomasia  in  D^pID,  which 
he  makes  perceptible  in  German  by  employing  the  three  viords,  fliegen, 
fliehen,  fiuchtigen.  Many  of  the  older  writers  use  a  comparative  cxiiression 
in  the  last  clause  after  the  example  of  the  Vulgate  (velociores).  Grotius 
l-ID-ljri  the  specific  sense  of  crsulabitis. 

17.  One  thousand  fr07n  before  the  rebuke  (or  menace)  of  one,  from  before 
the  rebuke  of  five  shall  ye  flee,  until  ye  are  left  like  a  mast  (or  pole)  on 
ihe  top  of  the  mountain,  and  like  the  signal  on  the  hill.  From  the  use  of 
the  definite  article  in  the  last  clause,  Junius  and  Treniellius  needlessly 
infer  that  the  meaning  is  this  mountain,  this  hill,  meaning  Zion.  The 
pleonastic  form  one  thousand  is  not  urged  by  any  of  the  German  writers  as 
a  proof  of  later  date.     To  supply  a  particle  of  comparison  {as  one)  is  of 


Ver.  18.]  ISAIAH  XXX.  479 

course  entirely  unnecessary.  To  complete  the  parallelism,  and  to  conform 
the  expression  to  Lev.  xxvi.  8,  Deut.  xxxii.  31,  Lowth  supposses  i"!??"^  [^ 
myriad)  to  have  dropped  out  of  the  text,  and  finds  a  trace  of  this  original 
reading  in  the  Septuagint  version  •n-oXXol.  Instead  of  a  definite  expres- 
sion, Clericus  and  others  supply  onwes.  The  former  emendation,  although 
not  adopted,  is  favoured  by  Gesenius  ;  but  the  later  craters  reject  both, 
not  only  as  unnecessary,  but  because,  as  Hitzig  well  observes,  such  a 
change  would  disturb  the  connection  with  what  follows,  the  sense  being 
plainly  this,  that  they  should  flee  until  they  were  left,  &c.  D^  is  taken  as 
the  name  of  a  tree  by  August!  (Tannenbaum)  and  Rosenmliller  (pinus),  by 
Gesenius  and  Ewald  as  a  signal  or  a  signal-pole.  In  the  only  two  cases 
where  it  occurs  elsewhere,  it  has  the  specific  meaning  of  a  mast.  The 
allusion  may  be  simply  to  the  similar  appearance  of  a  lofty  and  solitary  tree, 
or  the  common  idea  may  be  that  of  a  flag-staff,  which  might  be  found  in 
either  situation.  The  word  beacon,  here  employed  by  Gataker  and  Barnes, 
is  consistent  neither  with  the  Hebrew  nor  the  English  usage.  The  idea  of 
the  last  clause,  as  expressed  by  Hitzig,  is  that  no  two  of  them  should 
remain  together.     (Compare  1  Sam.  xi.  11.) 

18.  And  therefore  tvill  Jehovah  ivait  to  have  mercy  upon  you,  and 
therefore  ivill  he  rise  up  (or  be  exalted)  to  pity  rjou,  for  a  God  of  judgment 
is  Jehovah  ;  blessed  are  all  that  wait  for  him.  The  apparent  incongruity 
of  this  promise  with  the  threatening  which  immediately  precedes,  has  led  to 
various  constructions  of  the  first  clause.  The  most  violent  and  least  satis- 
factory is  that  which  takes  I5<  in  the  rare  and  doubtful  sense  of  hut  or 
nevertheless.  This  is  adopted  among  recent  writers  b}^  Gesenius,  Barnes, 
Henderson.  Another  solution,  given  by  Yitringa,  leaves  P^  to  be  imder- 
stood  as  usuiil,  but  converts  the  seeming  promise  into  a  threatening,  by 
explaining  H^n^  will  delay  (to  be  gracious),  and  D-1"lJ  u-ill  remain  afar  off 
(Jarchi :  [>'p'^p*).  But  this  is  certainly  not  the  obvious  and  natural  meaning 
of  the  Prophet's  words.  Hsn  elsewhere  means  to  wait  with  earnest  expecta- 
tion and  desire,  and  the  Kal  is  so  used  in  the  last  clause  of  this  very  verse. 
This  objection  also  lies  against  Maurer's  explanation  of  the  clause  as 
referring  to  delay  of  punishment.  Hitzig  supposes  the  connection  to  be  this : 
therefore  (because  the  issue  of  your  present  course  must  be  so  fatal)  he  will 
wait  or  allow  you  time  for  repentance.  Knobel  applies  the  whole  to  God's 
intended  dealings  with  them  after  the  threatened  judgments  should  have 
been  endured.     On  the  whole,  the  simplest  and  most  probable  conclusion 

seems  to  be  that  15"?  has  its  usual  meaning,  but  refers,  as  in  many  other 
cases,  to  a  remoter  antecedent  than  the  words  immediately  before  it.  As  if 
the  Prophet  paused  at  this  point  and  reviewing  his  denunciations  said, 
Since  this  is  so,  since  you  must  perish  if  now  dealt  with  strictly,  God  will 
allow  you  space  for  repentance,  he  will  wait  to  be  gracious,  he  will  exalt 
himself  by  shewing  mercy.  J.  H.  Michaehs,  with  much  the  same  eff"ect, 
refers  1?-;  to  the  condition  mentioned  in  ver.  15.  Therefore  (if  you  will  be 
quiet  and  believe)  Jehovah  will  wait,  &c.  Another  difficulty  of  the  same 
kind  has  arisen  from  the  next  clause,  where  the  justice  of  God  seems  to  be 
given  as  a  reason  for  shewing  mercy.  Gill  removes  the  difficulty  by  trans- 
lating ^2  althoxujh  ;  Henderson  by  taking  tDS^'O  in  the  sense  of  rectitude, 
including  as  a  prominent  idea  faithfulness  or  truth  in  the  fulfilment  of  his 
promises.  Another  expedient  suggested  by  Gill  is  to  give  t^DtJ'D  the  sense 
of  discretion.  That  the  clause  does  not  relate  to  righteousness  or  justice  in 
the  strict  sense,  appears  plain  from  the  added  benediction  upon  those  who 


480  ISAIAH  XXX.  [Ver.  19,  20. 

trust  Jfliovah,  One  point  is  universally  admitted,  namely,  that  somewhere 
in  this  verse  is  the  transition  from  the  tone  of  threatening  to  that  of  promise. 
The  question  where  it  shall  he  fixed,  though  interesting,  does  not  affect  the 
general  connection  or  the  import  of  the  passage  as  a  whole.  Ewald  strangely 
adop's,  as  absolutely  necessary,  Houbigant's  emendation  of  the  text,  by 
reading  D1"I^  for  D11\  and  explains  the  former  to  mean,  does  not  suffer  him- 
self to  be  moved  (riihrt  sich  nicht),  an  explanation  scarcely  less  arbitrary 
than  the  criticism  on  which  it  is  founded. 

19.  For  the  penjile  in  Zion  shall  durll  in  Jerusalem;  thou  shall  xreep 
no  wore  ;  he  uill  be  rery  f/racious  unto  thee  at  the  voice  of  thy  cry ;  as 
he  hears  it  he  Kill  answer  thee.  The  position  of  the  first  verb  in  this 
English  sentence  leaves  it  doubtful  whether  it  is  to  be  construed  with  what 
follows  or  what  goes  before.  Precisely  the  same  ambiguity  exists  in  the 
original,  which  may  either  mean  that  the  people  who  are  now  in  Zion  shall 
dwell  in  Jerusalem,  or  that  the  people  shall  dwell  in  Zion,  in  Jerusalem. 
This  last  is  the  most  natural  construction,  and  the  one  indicated  by  the 
accents.  It  is  adopted  in  the  English  Version,  but  with  a  needless  variation 
of  the  particle,  in  Zion  at  Jerusalem.  According  to  Henderson,  the  ^ 
expresses  more  strongly  the  relation  of  the  Jews  to  Zion  as  their  native  home. 
But  this  assertion  is  hardlj^  borne  out  by  the  places  which  he  cites  (chap.  xxi. 
13,  1  Kings  xvi.  24,  2  Kings  v.  23).  In  the  translation  above  given  the 
Hebrew  order  is  restored.  According  to  these  constructions,  ilwell  must  be 
tahen  in  the  strong  sense  of  remaining  or  continuing  to  dwell  (Hendewerk), 
in  allusion  to  the  deportation  of  the  rest  of  Judah  (Grotius),  or  of  the  ten 
tribes  (Clericus).  But  a  veiy  different  construction  of  the  first  clause  is 
proposed  by  Dbderlein,  and  approved  by  Gesenius  and  Ewald.  These 
interpreters  regard  the  whole  clause  as  a  vocative,  or  in  other  words  as  a 
description  of  the  object  of  address.  For  0  people  in  Zion,  dirclliny  in 
Jerusalem,  thou  shah  weep  no  more.  To  obtain  this  sense,  we  must  either 
read  ^C**  as  a  participle,  or  supply  the  relative  before  it,  and  suppose  a 
sudden  change  of  person,  as  in  chap,  xxviii.  16,  and  xxix.  14.  This  necessity, 
together  with  the  collocation  of  the  ''3  renders  the  vocative  construction  less 
natural  and  probable  than  that  which  makes  the  first  clause  a  distinct  pro- 
position or  promise.  Besides,  it  is  not  easy  to  account  for  so  extended  a 
description  of  the  people,  as  a  mere  introduction  to  the  words  that  follow. 
These  words  are  made  emphatic  by  the  combination  of  the  infinitive  and 
finite  verb.  De  Wettc,  according  to  his  wont,  regards  it  as  an  idiomatic 
pleonasm.  Grotius  translates  the  first  phrase,  non  diu  fiehis  ;  the  English 
Version,  thou  shall  weep  no  more.  (For  the  usage  of  this  combination  to 
express  continued  action,  see  the  note  on  chap.  vi.  9.)  Ewald  adheres  more 
closely  to  the  form  of  the  original  by  simple  repetition  of  the  verb  (weinen 
weinen  sollst  du  nicht,  begnadigen  beguadigen  wird  er  dich).  Coccoius 
retains  the  strict  sense  of  the  preterite  "^^JJ  as  an  appeal  to  their  experience 
(cum  audivit  rcspondit  tibi).  This  yields  a  good  sense,  but  the  other 
agrees  better  with  the  context.  The  particle  of  comparison  has  its  usual 
sense  before  the  infinitive,  and  is  best  represented  by  the  English  (7s. 
Lowth,  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint,  inserts  t^'np  and  changes  Nv  to 
y?,  reading  the  whole  clause  thus  :  when  a  holy  people  shall  dwell  in  Zinn, 
when  in  Jerusalem  thou  shall  implore  him  with  weepiny.  For  the  form  "^^OJ 
see  Gen.  xliii.  29. 

20.  And  the  Lord  will  yive  you  head  of  affliction  and  water  of  oppression, 
and  no  more  shall  thy  teachers  hide  themselves,  and  thine  eyes  shall  see  thy 
teachers.     The  first  clause  is  conditionally  construed  by  Calvin  (ubi  dederit), 


Ver.  21.]  ISAIAH  XXX.  481 

Vitringa  (siqnidem),  and  Ewakl  (gibt  eucli).  Clericus  refers  it  to  the  past 
(dedit).  But  both  usage  and  the  context  requhe  that  1  should  be  regarded 
as  conversive,  and  the  condition,  though  implied,  is  not  expressed.  The 
Vulgate  renders  "i^*  and  }'n?  as  adjectives  (panem  arctum,  aquam  brevem). 
De  Dieu  supposes  them  to  be  in  apposition  with  the  noun  preceding,  afflic- 
tion (as)  bread,  and  oppression  (as)  water.  This  is  favoured  by  the  absolute 
form  of  DIP  ;  but  the  same  words  are  construed  in  the  same  way,  1  Kings 
xxii.  27,  where  the  reference  can  only  be  to  literal  meat  and  drink.  For 
other  examples  of  the  absolute  instead  of  the  construct,  see  the  Hebrew 
grammars.  Gesenius  supphes  in  before  affliction  and  oppression,  implying 
that  even  in  the  midst  of  their  distress  God  would  feed  them.  Jarchi 
regards  this  as  a  description  of  the  temperate  diet  of  the  righteous,  and 
Junius  likewise  renders  it  modice  cihahcris.  The  true  connection  seems  to 
be,  that  God  would  afflict  them  outwardly,  but  would  not  deprive  them  of 
their  spiritual  privileges ;  or,  as  Cocceius  says,  there  should  be  a  famine  of 
bread,  but  not  of  the  word  of  the  Lord  (Amos  viii.  11).  From  the  use  of 
^^3  in  the  sense  of  u-ing  and  corner,  the  reflexive  verb  has  been  variously 
explained  as  meaning  to  fly  away  (Montanus),  and  to  be  removed  into  a 
comer  (English  Version),  or  shut  up  in  one  (Junius).  It  is  now  commonly 
agreed,  however,  that  the  primary  sense  is  that  of  covering,  and  that  the 
Niphal  means  to  hide  one's  self.  The  Vulgate  renders  '^\^i'3  as  a  singular 
(doctorem  tuum),  in  which  it  is  followed  by  Ewald,  who  explains  the  Hebrew 
word  as  a  singular  form  peculiar  to  the  roots  with  final  n.  (See  the  note 
on  chap.  v.  12.)  Thus  understood,  the  word  must  of  course  be  applied  to 
God  himself,  as  the  gi'eat  teacher  of  his  people.  Kimchi's  explanation  of 
the  word  as  meaning  the  early  rain  (which  sense  it  has  in  Joel  ii.  23,  and 
perhaps  in  Ps.  Ixxxiv.  7)  has  been  retained  only  by  Calvin  and  Lowth. 
The  great  majority  of  writers  adhere,  not  only  to  the  sense  of  teacher,  but 
to  the  plm'al  import  of  the  form,  and  understand  the  word  as  a  designation 
or  description  of  the  prophets,  with  particular  reference,  as  some  suppose, 
to  their  reappearance  after  a  period  of  severe  persecution  or  oppression. 
(See  Ezek.  xxxiii.  22.) 

21.  And  thine  ears  shall  hear  a  loord  from  behind  thee,  sayincj.  This  is 
the  way,  xvalk  ye  in  it,  when  ye  turn  to  the  right  and  when  ye  turn  to  the 
left.  The  Septuagiut  makes  this  the  voice  of  seducers  {tujv  TXavriaavrm)  ; 
but  it  is  evidently  that  of  a  faithful  guide  and  monitor  ;  according  to  the 
Rabbins,  the  Bath  Kol  or  mysterious  echo  which  conducts  and  warns  the 
righteous.  Word  is  an  idiomatic  expression  used  where  we  should  say 
one  speaking.  The  direction  of  the  voice  fr/ivi  behind  is  commonly  ex- 
plained by  saying,  that  the  image  is  borrowed  from  the  practice  of  shepherds 
going  behind  their  flocks,  or  nurses  behind  children,  to  observe  their 
motions.  A  much  more  natural  solution  is  the  one  proposed  by  Henderson, 
to  wit,  that  tbeir  guides  were  to  be  before  them,  but  that  when  they  declined 
from  the  right  way  their  backs  would  be  turned  to  them,  consequently  the 
warning  voice  would  be  heard  behind  them.  Tbe  meaning  of  the  call  is, 
this  is  the  way  which  you  have  left,  come  back  to  it.  Lowth  follows  the 
Septuagint,  Targum,  and  Peshito,  in  making  ^?  a  negative  (turn  not  aside}, 
wholly  without  necessity  or  wan'ant.  Interpreters  are  commonly  agreed 
that  the  particle  is  either  conditional  (if  ye  turn)  or  temporal  (when  ye  turn)  : 
but  the  simplest  construction  seems  to  be  that  proposed  by  Hendewerk  {for 
ye  turn  or  will  turn  to  the  right  and  to  the  left).  As  if  he  had  said,  this 
warning  will  be  necessary,  for  you  will  certainly  depart  at  times  fi'om  the 

VOL.  I.  H  h 


482  ISAIAH  XXX.  [Ver.  22-24. 

path  of  safety.  This  idea  may,  however,  be  considered  as  included  or  im- 
plied in  the  usual  translation  when.  Calvin  is  singular  in  applying  this 
clause,  not  to  deviations  fi-om  the  right  path,  but  to  the  emergencies  of  life 
in  general :  wherever  you  go,  whichever  way  you  turn,  you  shall  hear  this 
warning  and  du-ccting  voice.  The  verbs  in  the  last  clause  are  derived 
from  nouns  meaning  the  right  and  left  hand.  The  peculiar  form  of  the 
original  is  closely  and  even  barbarously  copied  by  Montanus  (cum  dextra- 
veritis  et  cum  sinistraveritis).  "U'DNn  may  be  either  an  inaccurate  ortho- 
graphy for  IJ^DTl,  or  derived  from  a  synonj-mous  root  P^. 

22.  And  he  shall  defile  [i.  e.  treat  as  unclean)  the  covering  of  thy  idols 
of  silver  and  the  case  cf  thy  image  of  gokl,  thou  shalt  scatter  them  (or  ahhor 
them)  as  an  abominable  thing.  Aivag  !  shalt  thou  say  to  it.  The  remark- 
able alteration  of  the  singular  and  plural,  both  in  the  nouns  and  verbs  of 
this  sentence,  is  retained  in  the  translation.  The  sense  of  Dns??t?  is  de- 
termined by  the  analogy  of  2  Kings  xxiii.  8,  10,  13.  The  gold  and  silver, 
both  in  Hebrew  and  English,  may  qualify  either  the  image  or  the  covering. 
The  latter  is  more  probable,  because  the  covering  would  scarcely  have  been 
mentioned,  if  it  had  not  been  commonly  of  greater  value  than  the  body  of 
the  idol.  ?^P?  and  n3Dp  strictly  denote  graven  and  molten  images  respec- 
tively, but  are  constantly  emploj'ed  as  poetical  equivalents.  The  specific 
meaning  given  to  ni'l  by  the  older  writers,  and  by  some  of  them  dwelt  upon 
with  needless  and  disgusting  particularity,  is  rejected  by  Ewald,  who  makes 
it  synonymous  with  M"!!  in  Job  vi.  7,  meaning  loathsomeness  or  anything 
loathsome.  He  also  connects  D!lt^  with  the  noun  N^l  ii^  Num.  xi.  20,  and 
renders  it  abhor.  The  common  meaning  scatter  is  appi'opriafe,  however, 
and  is  here  recommended  by  its  application  to  the  dust  or  fragments  of  the 
golden  calf  in  Exod.  xxxii.  20. 

23.  And  he  shall  give  the  rain  of  thy  seed  {i.  e.  the  rain  necessary  to  its 
growth),  with  which  thou  shalt  sow  the  ground,  and  bread,  the  produce  of 

.  the  ground,  and  it  shall  be  fat  and  rich  ;  thy  cattle  shall  feed  that  day  in  an 
enlarged  pasture.  Eosenmiiller  calls  this  a  description  of  the  golden  age, 
and  cites  a  parallel  from  Virgil.  He  even  mentions,  as  a  trait  in  the  de- 
scription, fruges  nullo  cuitu  enat(C,  whereas  the  very  next  words  imply 
laborious  cultivation.  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  the  resumption  of  tillage 
in  the  last  years  of  Hezekiah  to  be  here  predicted.  Henderson  explains  it 
as  a  promise  of  increased  fertility  after  the  return  from  exile.  All  these 
applications  appear  too  exclusive.  The  text  contains  a  promise  of  increased 
prosperity  after  a  season  of  privation,  and  was  often  verified.  That  *1?, 
which  usuall}'  has  the  sense  of  lamb,  is  ever  used  in  that  oi  pasture,  is 
denied  by  Hengstenberg  (on  Ps.  xxxvii.  20,  and  Ixv,  14).  But  the  latter 
meaning  seems  to  be  absolutely  necessary  here,  and  is  accordingly  assumed 
by  all  interpreters.  The  passive  participle  3n~i3  seems  to  imply,  not  only 
that  the  pastures  should  be  wide,  but  they  had  once  been  narrow. 

24.  And  the  oxen  and  the  asses  tvurJcing  the  grmuid  shall  eat  salted  pro- 
vender which  has  been  winnowed  (literally,  tvhich  one  winnoios)  with  the  sieve 
and  fan.  The  meaning  evidently  is  that  the  domesticated  animals  shall 
fare  as  well  as  men  in  other  times.     The  word  ear,  used  in  the  English 

Version,  is  an  obsolete  derivative  of  the  Latin  aro  to  plough.  V^n  ?'7? 
properly  matm^  fermented  mixture.  The  first  word  is  commonlj'  supposed 
to  denote  here  a  mixture  of  difierent  kinds  of  grain,  and  the  other  a  season- 
ing of  salt  or  acid  herbs,  pecuharly  grateful  to  the  stomachs  of  cattle. 
Lowth  translates  the  whole  phrase  ^oell- fermented  maslin,  which  is  retained 
by  Barnes,  while  Henderson  has  salted  provender.     J.  D.  Michaelis  sup- 


Ver.  25,  26.]  ISAIAH  XXX.  483 

poses  the  grain  to  be  here  described  as  twice  winnowed ;  but  the  imple- 
ments mentioned  were  probably  employed  in  one  and  the  same  process. 
Angusti :  thwu'n  to  tliem  (vorgeworfen)  with  the  shovel  and  the  fan. 

25.  And  there  shall  he,  on  every  high  viotintain,  and  on  every  elevated 
hill,  channels,  streams  of  waters,  in  the  day  of  (jreat  slaughter,  in  the  falling 
of  towers  (or  lohen  toioers  fall).  J.  D.  Michaelis  connects  this  with  what 
goes  before,  and  understands  it  as  a  description  of  the  height  to  which 
agriculture  would  be  earned,  by  means  of  artificial  irrigation,  alter  the  over- 
throw of  the  x^ssyrians.  Grotius  regards  it  as  a  promise  of  abundant  rains. 
Clericus  calls  this  a  gratuitous  conjecture,  but  immediately  proceeds  to  con- 
nect the  verse  with  the  figures  of  ver.  33,  and  to  explain  it  as  referring  to 
the  water-courses  which  it  would  be  necessary  to  open,  in  order  to  purify 
the  ground  from  the  eflects  of  such  a  slaughter.  To  this,  much  more  justly 
than  to  Grotius's  interpretation,  we  may  apply  the  words  of  Clericus  him- 
self in  another  place,  prastat  tacere  quam  hariolari.     He  also  arbitrarily 

gives  ?y  the  sense  oifrom.  The  simple  meaning  seems  to  be  that  water 
shall  flow  where  it  never  flowed  before,  a  common  figure  in  the  Prophets 
for  a  great  change,  and  especially  a  change  for  the  better.  The  same  sense 
is  no  doubt  to  be  attached  to  the  previous  descriptions  of  abundance  and 

fertility.  In  allusion  to  the  etymology  of  C^??,  Lowth  poetically  renders 
it  disparting  rills.  For  Q y'JI^P  Clericus  reads  Dy'yi^O,  and  understands  it 
as  descriptive  of  the  Assyrians,  qui  magnifice  se  efferehant.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
makes  the  same  application,  and  translates  the  word  Grossprecher.  A  similar 
reading  is  implied  in  the  versions  of  Aquila  and  Symmachus  (jXiyaXuvofj^s- 
voug).  Lowth  has  the  mighty  in  imitation  of  the  Targum  (P3"in"l).  Calvin 
applies  Qv^^P,  in  its  usual  sense,  to  Babylon.  Hitzig  infers  from  the  use 
of  the  word  J.in,  that  the  towers  meant  are  living  towers,  i.  e.  the  Assyrian 
chiefs.  Kjiobel  applies  ^^T}  to  the  slaughter  of  the  Jews  themselves,  and 
understands  by  toiuers  their  fortifications,  of  which  there  would  be  no  further 
need  in  the  happy  period  here  foretold.  The  words  are  referred  by  some 
of  the  Jewish  writers  to  the  days  of  the  Messiah ;  by  Vitringa,  with  a  three- 
fold application,  to  the  times  of  the  Maccabees,  of  Constantino,  and  of  the 
seventh  Apocalyptic  period ;  by  Gill,  to  the  slaughter  of  the  antichristian 
kings  described  in  Rev.  xix.  17-21.  The  diversity  and  arbitrary  nature  of 
these  explanations  shew  that  there  are  no  sufficient  data  in  the  text  itself 
for  any  such  specific  and  exclusive  application.  All  that  can  certainly  be 
gathered  from  the  words  is,  that  a  period  of  war  and  carnage  should  be  fol- 
lowed by  one  of  abundance  and  prosperity. 

2G.  And  the  light  of  the  moon  shall  he  as  the  light  of  the  sitn,  and  the  light 
of  the  sun  shall  he  sevenfold,  as  the  light  of  seven  dags,  in  the  day  of  Jehovah's 
landing  vj)  the  hreach  of  his  iieople,  and  the  stroke  of  his  wound  he  will  heal. 
Instead  of  the  usual  words  for  sun  and  moon,  we  have  here  two  poetical 
expressions,  one  denoting  heat  and  the  other  tohite.  Lowth  renders  one 
simply  moon,  but  the  other  meridian  sun.  August!  has  pale  moon  and 
burning  sun.  (Ewald,  das  hleiche  Mondliclit  und  das  Gutlicht.)  Lowth 
pronounces  the  words  as  the  light  of  seven  days  to  be  "a  manifest  gloss, 
taken  in  from  the  margin  ;  it  is  not  in  most  of  the  copies  of  the  LXX. ;  it 
interrupts  the  rhythmical  construction,  and  obscures  the  sense  by  a  false  or 
at  least  an  unnecessary  interpretation."  This  sentence  is  remarkable- as 
furnishing  the  model,  upon  which  the  textual  criticism  of  the  modem 
Germans,  with  respect  to  glosses,  seems  to  have  been  moulded.  We  have 
here  the  usual  supposition  of  a  transfer  from  the  margin,  the  usual  appeal 


484  ISAIAH  XXX.  [Veb.  27. 

to  some  defective  ancient  version,  the  usual  complaint  of  inten*upted  rhythm, 
and  the  usual  alternative  of  needless  or  erroneous  explanation.  The  liber- 
ties which  Lowth  took  with  the  text,  in  pursuance  of  a  false  but  favourite 
hj'pothesis,  have  led,  by  a  legitimate  but  unforeseen  application  of  his  priu- 
ciples,  to  results  from  which  he  would  himself  have  undoubtedly  recoilel. 
As  to  the  history  of  this  particular  criticism,  it  is  approved  by  Gesenius 
and  Hitzig,  but  rejected  by  Ewald,  and  Umbreit,  who  observes  that  the 
addition  of  these  wurds  was  necessary  to  explain  the  previous  words  as  not 
describing  seven  suns,  but  the  light  of  one  sun  upon  seven  days.  Maimo- 
nides  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  seven  days  of  the  dedication  of  Solomon's 
temple.  The  Targum,  still  more  strangely,  multiplies  the  seven  twice  into 
itself  and  reads,  three  hundred  and  forty-three  days,  a  conceit  no  doubt 
founded  upon  some  cabalistic  superstition.  Grotius  explains  the  figures  of 
this  verse  as  denoting  joy,  and  quotes  as  a  classical  parallel,  ipse  mihi  visus 
puJchrior  ire  dies,  to  which  Vitrmga  adds,  (/ratior  it  dies  et  soles  melius 
nitent.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  the  Prophet's  language  is  designed,  not 
merely  to  express  great  joy,  but  to  descHbe  a  change  in  the  face  of  nature, 
as  an  emblem  of  some  great  revolution  in  the  state  of  society  (Compare 
chap.  xiii.  10,  13).  It  is  therefore  another  item  added  to  the  catalogue  of 
previous  similes  or  comparisons,  all  denoting  the  same  thing,  yet  shewing 
by  their  very  diversity  that  they  denote  it  only  in  a  tropical  or  figurative 
manner.  Hendewerk  ironically  censures  Heiigstenberg  for  not  including 
the  improved  feed  of  oxen  and  asses  among  the  attributes  of  the  Messiah's 
reign.  But  the  real  inconsistency  is  on  the  part  of  those  who  understand 
ver.  24  in  its  strictest  sense,  and  yet  explain  the  verse  before  us  as  a  mere 
poetical  description  or  imaginative  anticipation.  The  remark  of  J.  D. 
Michaelis  upon  this  point  may  be  quoted  as  characteristic  of  his  mind  and 
manner.  **  This  is  not  to  be  literally  taken,  for  it  would  be  very  incon- 
venient to  us,  if  it  were  as  bright  by  night  as  it  is  now  by  day  when  the  sun 
shines ;  and  if  the  sun  should  shine  seven  times  brighter  than  now,  we  must  be 
blinded."  According  to  Gesenius,  the  wounds  referred  to  in  the  last  clause 
are  the  wounds  inflicted  by  false  teachers ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  reason 
for  restricting  the  import  of  the  terms  as  descriptive  of  suflering  in  general. 
27.  Behold,  the  name  of  Jehovah  cometh  from  afar,  burning  his  anger,  and 
heavy  the  ascent  (of  smoke) :  his  lips  are  full  of  icrath,  and  his  tongue  as  a 
devouring  f  re.  Koppe  begins  a  new  division  here  without  necessity.  By 
the  nanie  of  Jehovah  we  are  not  simplj'  to  understand  Jehovah  himself,  but 
Jehovah  as  revealed  in  word  or  act,  and  therefore  glorious.  (Grotius : 
Deus  omni  laude  dignissimus.)  According  to  Raymuud  Martini,  the  ex- 
pression was  applied  by  the  old  Jews  to  the  Messiah.  Gill  thinks  it  may 
denote  the  angel  who  destroyed  Sennacherib's  army.  J.  D.  Michaelis  takes 
the  name  in  its  strict  sense,  and  translates  the  verb  crschalki  (the  name  of 
Jehovah  sounds  or  echoes  from  afar),  pinp^  is  by  some  referred  to  time, 
but  the  proper  local  sense  is  more  appropriate.  Clericus  alone  translates 
iSN  his  face  (ardens  facies  ejus).  The  English  Version  makes  "IJ^.S  agree 
with  Dt?',  and  supplies  a  preposition  before  13*:5  {burning  with  his  anger.) 
Others  supply  the  preposition  before  "1^3  (with  his  burning  auger).  Others 
make  the  clause  an  independent  proposition  {hurning  is  his  anger).  Ewald 
adopts  a  construction  similar  to  that  of  the  ablative  absolute  in  Latin  (/t?i 
anger  hurning).  Augusti  supposes  the  next  words  to  mean,  he  nxikes  the 
burden  heavy,  which  implies  a  change  of  text,  at  least  as  to  the  pointing. 
Most  of  the  late  interpreters  explain  H^'l^'Q  as  synonymous  with  nxbo, 
meaning  strictly  the  ascent  of  smoke  or  flame,  and  by  metonymy  the  smoke 


Ver.  28,  29.]  ISAIAH  XXX.  485 

or  flame  itself.  (Compare  the  notes  on  chap.  ix.  18,  19.)  Barnes  :  the 
flame  is  heavy.  Henderson :  dense  is  the  smoke.  Hendewerk  has  Rauch- 
mide  (column  of  smoke),  Umbreit  aufstiegender  Brand  (ascending  fire  or 
conflagration).  Ewald  and  Knobel  have  reverted  to  the  primary  meaning, 
ascent  or  elevation.  The  former  has  ffewal tiger  Erhebung ;  the  latter,  hearg 
{i.  e.  slow)  is  the  rising  of  Jehovah  in  the  distance.  (Ecolampadius  under- 
stands by  lijjs  and  tongue  the  sentence  pronounced  by  the  Messiah  on  his 
enemies  :  but  the  words  are  to  be  strictly  understood  as  traits  in  the  pro- 
phetic picture  of  this  terrible  epiphany. 

28.  And  his  breath  (or  spirit),  like  an  overflomng  stream,  shall  divide  as 
far  as  the  neck,  to  sift  the  nations  in  the  sieve  of  falsehood,  and  a  misleading 

bridle  on  the  jaws  of  the  people.  There  are  here  three  metaphors  employed 
to  express  the  same  general  idea,  those  of  a  flood,  a  sieve,  and  a  bridle. 
Umbreit  is  singular  in  putting  a  favourable  meaning  on  the  last  two,  as 
implying  that  the  nations  should  be  purged,  not  destroyed,  by  sifting  ;  and 
that  when  they  thought  themselves  misled,  they  should  be  brought  into  the 
right  path  by  a  way  they  knew  not.  This  is  far  less  natural  than  the  com- 
mon explanation  of  the  whole  verse  as  a  threatening  against  Jehovah's  ene- 
mies. Grotius  renders  H-l"!  anger,  Luther  and  the  English  Version  breath  ; 
but  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  excluding  an  allusion  to  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  a  personal  agent.  Junius  makes  H^n^  a  preterite,  in  accordance  with  his 
notion  that  the  whole  verse  has  respect  to  the  Assyrian  oppression  of  the 
tributary  nations.  The  verb  means  strictly  to  divide  into  halves,  and  is  here 
explained  by  the  English  Version  in  the  sense  of  reaching  to  the  midst ;  but 
most  interpreters  adopt  the  explanation  of  Vatablus,  that  the  water,  rising 
to  the  neck,  divides  the  body  into  two  unequal  parts.  The  metaphor  itself, 
as  in  chap.  viii.  8,  denotes  extreme  danger.  The  phrase  ^y^  ri2:  is  am- 
biguous. It  may  either  mean  the  sieve  of  falsehood  (Clericus,  cribro  men- 
dacii)  or  of  wickedness  in  general,  i.  e.  the  instrument  by  which  the  wicked, 
and  especially  the  false,  are  to  be  punished  ;  or  the  sieve  of  ruin,  pointing 
out  the  issue  of  the  process,  as  the  other  version  does  the  object  upon  which 
it  acts.  This  last  sense  is  attained,  in  a  different  way,  by  Calvin,  who  ex- 
plains the  words  to  mean  in  a  useless  (or  tvorthless)  sieve,  i.  e.  according  to 
Gill's  paraphrase,  "  they  were  to  be  sifted,  not  with  a  good  and  profitable 
sieve,  which  retains  the  corn  and  shakes  out  the  chaft',  or  so  as  to  have  some 
taken  out  and  spared,  but  with  a  sieve  that  lets  all  through,  and  so  be 
brought  to  nothing,  as  the  Vulgate  Latin  Version  {in  niJiilum)."  Barnes's 
translation  of  this  clause  is,  to  toss  tlie  nations  with  the  winnowing  shovel  of 
perdition.  '"133!!.  is  noted  by  Gesenius  and  Knobel  as  a  Chaldee  form,  but 
neither  of  them  seems  to  regard  it  as  a  proof  that  the  passage  is  later  than 
the  time  of  Isaiah.  The  construction  of  this  verb  with  JPTi  is  regarded  by 
some  writers  as  an  instance  of  zeugma.  Others  supply  the  verb  to  put, 
others  the  substantive  verb  to  be,  or  there  shall  be,  as  in  the  English  Version. 
The  connection  is  in  any  case  too  plain  to  be  mistaken.  The  last  clause  is 
paraphrased  by  Luther  as  denoting  that  Jehovah  would  drive  the  nations 
hither  and  thither  (bin  und  her  treibe).  Most  interpreters  prefer  the  more 
specific  sense  of  leading  astray,  or  in  the  wrong  direction,  with  particular 
allusion,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes,  to  the  fact  that  Sennacherib  was 
misled  by  a  false  report  respecting  Tirhakah,  the  king  of  Ethiopia.  The 
equestrian  allusion  in  the  text  has  nowhere,  perhaps,  been  so  fully  carried 
out  as  in  the  old  French  Version,  qui  lesfera  trotter  a  trovers  champs. 

29.  The  song  (or  singing)  shall  be  to  you  [i.  e.  your  song  shaU  be)  like 
the  night  of  the  consecration  of  a  feast,  and  joy  of  heart  {i.  e.  your  joy  shall 


486  ISAIAH  XXX.  [Ver.  30,  31. 

be)  like  (that  of)  one  marching  7vith  the  pipe  {or  flute)  to  go  into  the  moun- 
tain of  Jehovah,  to  the  Roch  of  Israel.  The  night  may  be  particularly  men- 
tioned in  the  first  clause,  either  because  all  the  Mosaic  festivals  began  in 
the  evening,  or  with  special  allusion  to  the  Passpver,  which  is  described  in 
the  law  (Exod.  xii.  42)  as  a  niyht  to  be  much  observed  unto  the  Lord,  as  that 
night  of  the  Lord  to  be  observed  of  all  the  children  of  Israel  in  their  genera- 
tions. By  ti'npnn  we  are  probably  to  understand  the  whole  celebration  of 
the  feast,  and  not  the  mere  proclaiming  of  it,  as  expressed  by  Lowth  and 
Barnes,  This  verse  gives  an  interesting  glimpse  of  ancient  usage  as  to  the 
visitation  of  the  temple  at  the  greater  yearly  festivals.  The  Rock  of  Israel 
is  not  mount  Zion  or  Moriah,  but  Jehovah  himself,  to  whose  presence  they 
resorted,  as  appears  from  2  Samuel  xxiii.  3. 

30.  And  Jehovah  shall  cause  to  be  heard  the  majesty  of  his  voice,  and  the 
descent  of  his  arm  shall  he  cause  to  be  seen,  tcith  indignation  of  anger  and  a 

flame  of  devouring  fre,  scattering,  and  rain,  and  hailstones  (literally  stone  of 
hail).  There  is  no  more  need  of  explaining  Jehovah's  voice  to  be  thunder 
than  there  is  of  explaining  the  stroke  of  his  arm  to  be  lightning,  both  which 
explanations  are  in  fact  given  by  Knobel.  The  image  presented  is  that  of 
a  theophany,  in  which  storm  and  tempest  are  only  accompanying  circum- 
stances, nn;  may  be  either  a  derivative  of  n-1J,  to  rest,  or  of  rinj,  to 
descend,  although  the  latter  is  more  probably  itself  derived  from  the  noun. 
Lowth's  translation  of  fl>?  ^Vl^  (with  ivrath  indignant)  is  neither  so  exact  nor 
so  impressive  as  the  literal  version.  V?.^  is  rendered  by  the  older  writers 
as  an  abstract  noun  from  )*QJ,  to  scatter ;  by  Rosenmiiller  and  Ivnobel  as  a 
poetical  description  of  the  winds  as  scatterers ;  but  by  Gesenius  fi'om  the 
Chaldee  and  Arabic  analogy,  as  meaning  a  violent  or  driving  rain. 

31.  For  at  the  voice  of  Jehovah  shall  Assyria  (or  the  Assyrian)  be  broken, 
tvith  the  rod  shall  he  smite.  The  }P  before  ^ip  may  denote  either  the  time 
or  the  cause  of  the  effect  described,  and  may  accordingly  be  rendered 
either  at  or  by.  The  first  may  be  prefen-ed  as  more  comprehensive,  and 
as  really  including  the  other,  nnn  originally  means  to  be  broken,  and  is  so 
used  in  chap.  vii.  8  above ;  but  it  is  commonly  applied,  in  a  figurative 
sense,  to  the  breaking  of  the  spirit  or  courage  by  the  alarm.  Here  some 
translate  it,  beaten  down,  as  in  the  English  A'ersion,  others  frightened  or 
confounded,  as  in  Luther's  (erschrecken).  There  are  two  constructions  of  the 
last  clause,  one  continuing  Assp-ia  as  the  subject  of  the  verb,  the  other  re- 
ferring it  to  Jehovah.  Forerius  amends  the  text  by  reading  H?.^  iu  the 
passive  {he  shall  be  smitten),  which  gratuitous  suggestion  is  adopted  by 
Dathe  and  Koppe.  Lowth,  not  content  with  supplying  the  relative  before 
n?!,  inserts  it  in  the  text,  on  the  authority  of  Seeker's  conjecture  that  it 
may  have  dropped  out  {forte  e^vcidit).  The  past  form  given  to  the  verb,  not 
only  in  the  English  version  {smote),  but  by  Hitzig  {schlug),  seems  entirely 
unauthorized  by  usage  or  the  context.  Ewald,  less  violently,  roads  it  as 
a  present  {schUigt)  ;  but  even  if  Assp'ia  be  the  subject  of  the  clause,  it  is 
clear  that  the  Prophet  speaks  of  her  oppressions  as  being,  in  whole  or  in 
part,  still  future  to  his  own  perceptions.  A  much  less  simple  and  success- 
ful method  of  accounting  for  the  future  is  by  making  the  verb  mean  that 
AssjTia  was  ready  or  about  to  smite,  with  Lowth  and  Vitringa  {virga  percus- 
surus).  But  by  far  the  most  natural  construction  of  the  clause  is  that 
which  supplies  nothing  and  adheres  to  the  strict  sense  of  the  future,  by  con- 
necting n?*,  not  with  1'1*l''N,  but  nin|',  both  which  are  mentioned  in  the 
other  clause.  Gesenius,  although  right  in  this  respect,  mars  the  beautiful 
simplicity  of  the  construction,  by  gratuitously  introducing  when  at  the  be- 


Ver.  32.]  ISAIAH  XXX.  487 

ginning  of  the  first  clause,  and  then  at  the  beginning  of  the  second.  No 
less  objectionable,  on  the  score  of  taste,  is  the  use  of  yea  or  yes,  as  an  equi- 
valent to  ^3,  by  De  Wette  and  Ewald.  Knobel's  translation  of  the  same 
word  by  then  is  as  arbitrar}^  here  as  in  chap.  vii.  9,  the  oul)'  authority  to 
which  he  appeals.  The  express  mention  of  Assyria  in  this  verse,  though 
it  does  not  prove  it  to  have  been  from  the  beginning  the  specific  subject  of 
the  prophecy,  does  shew  that  it  was  a  conspicuous  object  in  Isaiah's  view, 
as  an  example  both  of  danger  and  deliverance,  and  that  at  this  point  he 
concentrates  his  prophetic  vision  on  this  object  as  a  signal  illustration  of 
the  general  truths  which  he  has  been  announcing. 

32.  Aiid  every  passage  of  the  rod  of  doom,  tohich  Jehovah  ivill  lay  (or 
cause  to  rest)  tipon  him,  shall  be  with  tabrets  and  harps,  and  with  fights  of 
shaking  it  is/otight  therein.  There  is  the  same  diversity  of  judgment  here 
as  in  the  foregoing  verse,  with  respect  to  the  question  whether  the  rod 
mentioned  in  the  first  clause  is  the  rod  which  the  Assyrian  -svielded,  or  the 
rod  which  smote  himself.  On  the  former  supposition,  the  sense  would  seem 
to  be,  that  in  every  place  through  which  the  rod  of  the  oppressor  had  before 
passed,  there  should  now  be  heard  the  sound  of  joyful  music.  This  con- 
struction not  only  involves  the  necessity  of  supplying  in  before  the  first 
noun,  but  leaves  the  words,  which  Jehovah  icill  lay  upon  him,  either  un- 
meaning or  irrelevant,  or  at  least  far  less  appropriate  than  if  the  reference 
be  to  Jehovah's  judgments  on  Assyria,  which  is  fm-ther  recommended  by 
the  reasons  above  given  for  applying  the  last  words  of  ver.  31  to  the  same 
catastrophe.  Assuming,  therefore,  that  the  clause  before  us  was  likewise 
intended  to  be  so  applied,  the  sense  would  seem  to  be  that  every  passage 
of  Jehovah's  rod  {i.  e.  every  stroke  which  passes  from  it  to  the  object)  will 
be  hailed  by  those  whom  the  Assyrian  had  oppressed,  with  joy  and  exulta- 
tion. It  is  an  ingenious  suggestion  of  Henderson,  though  scarcely  justi- 
fied by  Hebrew  usage,  thatl^V^  is  here  employed  in  the  peculiar  acceptation 
of  the  English  pass,  as  used  to  denote  a  push  or  thrust  in  fencing.  This 
combination,  however,  is  not  needed  to  justify  his  version  (stroke).  For 
nnpIO,  Clericus  reads  nip-ID  or  1D"ID  (supplicii),  on  the  ground  of  which 
conjecture,  and  the  authority  of  one  or  two  manuscripts,  Lowth  amends  the 
text,  and  translates  accordingly  (the  rod  of  correction).  In  hke  manner, 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  his  Gennan  Version  {strafenden  Stah).  None  of  the 
later  writers  seem  to  have  retained  this  needless  emendation.  The  common 
version,  grounded  staff,  is  almost  unintelligible.  It  may  have  some  connec- 
tion with  Calvin's  explanation  of  the  Hebrew  phrase  as  meaning,  a  staff 
grounded,  that  is,  fii-mly  planted,  in  the  object  smitten,  or  as  J.  D.  Michaehs 
(in  his  Notes)  has  it,  well  laid  on  (recht  vest  und  stark  auf  den  Riicken 
geleget).  This,  to  use  a  favourite  expression  of  the  gi'eat  Reformer,  seems 
both  forced  and  frigid.  It  is  now  very  generally  agreed  that  nip-ID  denotes 
the  divine  determination  or  decree,  and  that  the  whole  phrase  means  the  rod 
appointed  by  him,  or  to  put  it  in  a  form  at  once  exact  and  poetical,  the  rod  of 
destiny  or  doom.  Umbreit  attaches  to  the  words  the  specific  sense  of  long 
since  determined  (lang  verhangte),  which  is  not  in  the  original.  The  tabrets 
and  hai-ps  ai*e  not  here  named  as  the  ordinary  military  music  (Gill),  nor  as 
the  sacred  music  which  on  particular  occasions  was  connected  with  the 
march  of  armies  (2  Chron.  xx.  21,  22).  Nor  is  the  meaning  that  Jehovah 
would  overcome  the  enemy  as  if  in  sport  or  like  a  meiTy-making  (Grotius), 
which  is  inconsistent  with  the  words  that  follow,  battles  of  shaking,  i.  e. 
agitating  or  tumultuous  battles,  or  as  some  explain  the  words,  convulsive, 
struggling  conflicts.     The  true  sense  seems  to  be,  that  every  stroke  would 


488  ISAIAH  XXX.  [Ver.  83. 

be  attended  with  rejoicing  on  the  part  of  the  spectators,  and  especially 
of  those  who  had  been  subject  to  oppression.  Qn?3  may  agree  with 
nin*  as  an  active  or  deponent  verb,  or  be  construed  impersonally  as  by 
Ewald  (wird  gekarapft).  The  keri  (Q3)  must  of  course  mean  with  thein,  i.e. 
the  Assyrians.  The  kethib  (^3)  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  uith  her, 
i.  e.  Assyria,  considered  as  a  country'.  But  Ewald  takes  it  to  mean  there, 
or  lit  .'rally  in  it,  i.e.  in  the  Holy  Land.  This,  if  we  make  the  verb  im- 
personal, is  natural  enough,  except  that  it  assumes  an  antecedent  not  ex- 
pressly mentioned  in  the  context.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  general  sense  is 
plain,  to  wit,  that  God  would  violently  overthrow  Assyria. 

33.  For  arramiexl  since  yesterday  is  Tophet ;  even  it  for  the  Icing  is  pre- 
pared ;  he  has  deepened,  he  has  widened  (it)  ;  its  pile  fire  and  wood  in 
plenty  ;  the  hreath  of  Jehovah,  like  a  stream  of  brimstone,  kindles  it.  It  is 
universally  agreed  that  the  destruction  of  the  Assyrian  king  is  here  described 
as  a  burning  of  his  body  at  a  stake,  or  on  a  funeral-pile.  But  whether 
the  king  mentioned  be  an  individual  king  or  an  ideal  representative  of  all,  and 
whether  this  is  a  mere  figurative  representation  of  his  temporal  destruction 
or  a  premonition  of  his  doom  hereafter,  are  disputed  questions.  Tophet  is 
well  known  to  have  been  the  name  of  a  place  in  the  valley  of  Hinnoni 
where  children  were  sacrificed  to  Moloch,  and  on  that  account  afterwards 
defiled  by  the  deposit  of  the  filth  of  the  city,  to  consume  which,  constant 
fires  were  maintained.  Hence,  by  a  natural  association,  Tophet,  as  well  as 
the  more  general  name,  Valley  of  Hinnom,  was  applied  by  the  later  Jews 
to  the  place  of  future  torment.  The  Chaldee  paraphrase  of  this  verse 
renders  H^pri  by  D^nj.  The  name  Tophet  has  been  commonly  derived  fi*om 
^•1J^,  to  spit  upon,  as  an  expression  of  abhorrence;  but  Gesenius  derives  it 
from  the  Persian  ^lilj"  to  burn,  with  which  he  also  connects  ^d'^Tnv,  as 
originally  meaning  to  hum  and  secondarily  to  bury.  If  this  be  the  correct 
etymology  of  n?n,  it  denotes  a  place  of  burning  in  the  general,  and  was  only 
apphed  to  the  spot  before  mentioned  by  way  of  eminence,  in  allusion  either 
to  the  sacrificial  or  the  purgatorial  fires  there  maintained,  or  both.  On  this 
hypothesis,  it  would  be  altogether  natural  to  understand  the  word  here  in  an 
indefinite  or  generic  sense,  as  meaning  a  place  of  burning,  such  as  a  stake 
or  a  funeral  pile,  and  it  is  so  explained  accordingly  by  Gesenius  (Brand- 
stiitte),  Ewald  (Scheiterhaufen),  and  other  late  interpreters.  The  question 
whether  it  is  here  used  to  describe  the  place  of  future  torments,  or  as  a  mere 
poetical  description  of  the  temporal  destruction  of  the  king  of  Assyria,  is  the 
less  im[)ortant,  as  the  language  must  in  either  case  be  figurative,  and  can 
teach  us  nothing  therefore  as  to  the  real  circumstances  either  of  the  first  or 
second  death.  Considering,  however,  the  appalling  grandeur  of  the  images 
presented,  and  our  Saviour's  use  of  similar  expressions  to  describe  the  place 
of  everlasting  punishment,  and  also  the  certainty  deducible  from  other  scrip- 
tures, that  a  wicked  king  destroyed  in  the  act  of  fighting  against  God  must  be 
punished  in  the  other  world  as  well  as  this,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  understand 
the  passage  as  at  least  including  a  denunciation  of  eternal  misery,  although 
the  general  idea  which  the  figures  were  intended  to  express  is  that  of  sudden, 
terrible  destruction.  As  the  phrase  PIOJp^O  has  been  variously  explained  to 
mean  long  ago,  nndJKst  now  or  a  little  uhile  ago,  it  is  best  to  retain  the 
original  expression  with  Calvin  (ab  hesterno)  and  Umbreit  (von  gesteiii 
her).  The  old  Jews  have  a  curious  tradition  that  hell  was  made  on  the 
second  day  of  the  creation,  or  the  first  that  had  a  vesterday,  for  which 
reason  God  pronounced  no  blessing  on  it.     The  verbs  P''^V^  and  3mn  must 


Ver.  1.]  ISAIAH  XXXI.  489 

be  either  construed  with  Jehovah  or  indefinitely.  i^l^P  means  the  whole 
circumference  and  area  of  the  place  of  burning.  Gesenius  connects  it  with 
the  foregoing  verbs  to  make  the  structure  of  the  sentence  more  symmetrical 
(deep  and  wide  is  its  pile — fire  and  wood  in  plentj')  ;  but  Hitzig  vindicates 
the  Masoretic  interijunction  on  the  ground  that  the  foregoing  verbs  cannot 
be  applied  to  the  pile,  and  that  the  following  proposition  would  in  that 
.case  have  no  predicate.  For  a  similar  expression  he  refers  to  Jcr.  xxiv.  2. 
Lowth  connects  "^P^l^P  with  ^*^  and  renders  it  a  Jienj  pyre,  which  Barnes 
has  altered  to  a  pyre  for  the  flame,  both  overlooking  the  pronominal  suffix. 
Augusti  takes  the  final  H  as  a  sufiix  (Jiis  Tophet)  ;  but  it  is  commonly  re- 
garded as  a  paragogic  letter  or  a  mere  euphonic  variation  of  the  usual  form 
nsn.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  however,  thinks  that  if  the  present  reading  is  the 
true  one,  it  must  be  a  verb  meaning  thou  shall  he  deceived,  another  allusion 
to  the  false  report  about  the  Ethiopians.  De  Wette  renders  ''I  at  the  begin- 
ning yea  ;  but  it  has  really  its  proper  sense  of /or,  lecaiise,  connecting  this 
verse,  either  with  the  one  immediately  before  it,  or  with  the  remoter  context. 
Knobel  supposes  that  the  images  of  this  verse  were  selected  because  the 
burning  of  the  dead  was  foreign  from  the  Jewish  customs  and  abhorrent  to 
their  feelings.  According  to  Clericus,  the  Tophet  of  this  verse  was  a  place 
of  burning  really  prepared  by  Hezekiah  for  the  bodies  of  the  slain  Assyrians, 
but  entirely  distinct  from  the  Tophet  near  Jerusalem.  Luther  by  rendering 
it  pit  (die  Grube),  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  chirchyard  (Kirchhof),  destroy  its 
connection  with  the  real  Tophet,  and  with  the  ideas  of  fire  and  bui'ning. 

CHAPTEE  XXXI. 

Reliance  upon  Egypt  is  distrust  of  God,  who  will  avenge  himself  by 
destroying  both  the  helper  and  the  helped,  vers.  1-3.  His  determination  and 
ability  to  save  those  who  confide  in  his  protection  are  expressed  by  two 
comparisons,  vers.  4,  5.  The  people  are  therefore  invited  to  return  to  him, 
from  every  false  dependence,  human  or  idolatrous,  as  they  will  be  constrained 
to  do  with  shame,  when  they  shall  witness  the  destruction  of  their  enemies 
by  the  resistless  fire  of  his  "UTath,  vers.  6-9. 

Hitzig  assumes  an  interval,  though  not  a  very  long  one,  between  this 
and  the  preceding  chapter.  To  most  interpreters  and  readers,  it  seems  to 
be  a  direct  continuation,  or  at  most  a  repetition,  of  the  threatenings  and 
reproofs  which  had  just  been  uttered. 

1.  Woe  to  those  going  doivn  to  Egypt  for  help,  and  on  horses  they  lean 
(or  rehj)  and  trust  in  cavalry,  because  it  is  mimerous,  and  in  horse- 
men, because  they  are  very  strong,  and  they  look  not  to  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel,  and  Jehovah  they  seek  not.  The  abundance  of  horses  in  Egypt  is 
attested,  not  only  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  but  by  jirofane  writers. 
Homer  describes  Thebes  as  having  a  hundred  gates,  out  of  each  of  v>'hich 
two  hundred  warriors  went  forth  with  chariots  and  horses.  Diodorus  speaks 
of  the  whole  country  between  Thebes  and  Memphis  as  filled  with  royal 
stables.  The  horses  of  Solomon  are  expressly  said  to  have  been  bi'ought 
out  of  Egypt.  This  kind  of  military  force  was  more  highly  valued,  in  com- 
parison with  infantry,  by  the  ancients  than  the  moderns,  and  especially  by 
those  who,  like  the  Hebrews,  were  almost  entirely  deprived  of  it  themselves. 
Hence  their  reliance  upon  foreign  aid  is  frequently  identified  with  confidence 
in  horses,  and  contrasted  with  simple  trust  in  God  (Ps.  xx.  8).  Most 
interpreters  give  33^  here  its  usual  sense  of  chariot,  put  collectively  for 
chariots ;  but  as  such  a  use  of  the  singular  between  two  plurals  would  be 


490  ISAIAH  XXXI.  [Ver.  2-4. 

somewhat  unnatural,  it  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  which  we  have  seen  it  to 
have  in  chap.  xxi.  7.  To  seek  Jeltorah  is  not  merely  to  consult  him,  but  to 
seek  his  aid,  resort  to  him,  implying  the  strongest  confidence.  For  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase  look  to,  see  the  note  on  chap.  xvii.  8. 

2.  And  (yet)  he  too  is  irise,  and  brinfjs  evil,  and  Ins  words  he  removes  not, 
ami  he  rises  up  ar/ainst  the  house  of  evil-doers,  and  af/ainst  the  help  of  the 
iL'orkers  of  iniquitij.  The  adversative  yet  is  required  by  our  idiom  in  this 
connection,  but  is  not  expressed  by  D3,  which  has  its  usual  sense  of  too  or 
also,  implying  a  comparison  with  the  Egyptians,  upon  whose  wisdom,  as 
well  as  strength,  the  Jews  may  have  relied,  or  with  the  Jews  themselves, 
who  no  doubt  reckoned  it  a  masterpiece  of  wisdom  to  secure  such  power- 
ful assistance.  The  comparison  may  be  explained  as  comprehending  both. 
God  was  as  wise  as  the  Egyptians,  and  ought  therefore  to  have  been  con- 
sulted :  he  was  as  wise  as  the  Jews,  and  could  therefore  thwart  their  boasted 
policy.  There  is  not  only  a  meiosis  in  this  sentence,  but  an  obvious  irony. 
There  is  no  need  of  supposing,  with  Yitringa,  that  the  wisdom,  either  of 
Egypt  or  of  Israel,  is  here  denied,  excepting  iu  comparison  with  that  of 
God.  The  translation  of  the  verbs  as  futures  is  arbitrary.  Ewald  refers 
i<?J  to  previous  threateuings,  which  is  hardly  justified  by  usage.  "fPil,  in 
this  connection,  seems  to  have  the  sense  of  withdrawing  or  revoking;  as  in 
Josh.  xi.  15,  it  denotes  a  practical  revocation  by  neglecting  to  fulfil.  The 
hmise  of  evil-doers  is  their  family  or  race  (chap.  i.  4),  here  applied  to  the 
unbelieving  Jews.  The  Egyptians  are  called  their  help,  and  both  are 
threatened  with  destruction.  To  rise  up  is  to  shew  one's  self,  address  one's 
self  to  action,  and  implies  a  state  of  previous  forbearance  or  neglect. 

3.  And  Egi)iit  {is)  man  and  not  God,  and  their  horses  flesh  and  not  spirit; 
and  Jehovah  shall  stretch  out  his  hand,  and  the  helper  shall  stumble,  and  the 
helped  fall,  and  toffether  all  of  them  shall  cease  (or  be  destroyed).  This 
verse  repeats  the  contrast  between  hnman  and  divine  aid,  and  the  threat- 
ening that  the  mibelievers  and  their  foreign  helpers  should  be  involved  in 
the  same  destruction.  The  antithesis  of  flesh  and  spirit,  like  that  of  God 
and  man,  is  not  metaphysical  but  rhetorical,  and  is  intended  simply  to 
express  extreme  dissimilitude  or  inequality.  ReHance  upon  Eg^-^jt  is 
again  sarcastically  represented  as  reliance  upon  horses,  and  as  such  opposed 
to  confidence  in  God.  As  Egypt  here  means  the  Egyptians,  it  is  after- 
wards referred  to  as  a  plural.     Stumble  and  fall  are  here  poetical  equivalent^. 

4.  For  thus  said  Jehovah  unto  me,  As  a  lion  groivls,  and  a  young  lion, 
over  his  prey,  against  whom  a  mtdtitude  of  shepherds  is  called  forth,  at 
their  voice  he  is  not  frightened,  and  at  their  noise  he  is  not  humbled,  so  will 
Jehovah  of  hosts  come  down,  to  fight  upon  mount  Zion  and  up)on  her  hill. 
This  is  still  another  form  of  the  same  contrast.  The  comparison  is  a 
favourite  one  with  Homer,  and  occurs  in  the  eighteenth  book  of  the  Iliad,  in 
terms  almost  identical.  Growl  is  to  be  preferred  to  roar,  not  only  for  the 
reason  given  by  Bochart,  that  the  lion  roars  before,  not  after  it  has  seized 
its  prey,  but  because  HJn  more  properly  denotes  a  suppressed  or  feeble 
sound.  K?p  is  literally  /"/////^ss-,  and  is  rendered  by  Montanus  plenitudiyie. 
Other  less  natural  constructions  of  the  second  clause  are  :  when  a  mtdtitude 
is  called;  who  (when)  a  mibltitude  is  called,  &c.  Some  read  ^^^P?,  and 
translate  it  either  cries  or  meets.  Most  interpreters  have,  for  mount  Zion, 
in  which  sense  7J?  is  used  with  Onpj  elsewhere.  But  as  5<3V  itself,  with 
thissame  preposition,  means  to  fight  against  in  chap.  xxix.  7,  Hitzig  and 
Hendewerk  regard  this  as  a  threatening  that  God  will  take  part  with  the 
Assyrians  against  Jerusalem,  the  promise  of  deliverance  beginning  with  the 


Ver.  5-7.]  ISAIAH  XXXI.  491 

next  verse.  Ewald  supposes  ^<3y  to  be  used  in  allusion  to  the  name 
niN3y  (the  Lord  of  Iwsts  will  be  present  in  the  Iwst)  and  gives  ^V  the  sense 
of  over  or  upon  (Uber),  wliich  may  either  indicate  the  place  or  the  subject 
of  the  contest.  By  supposing  the  particle  to  mean  coticerning,  we  can 
explain  its  use  both  in  a  hostile  and  a  favourable  sense.  The  ''3  at  the 
beginning  of  this  verse  introduces  the  ground  or  reason  of  the  declaration 
that  the  seeking  of  foreiga  aid  was  both  unlawful  and  unnecessary.  The 
Mil  is  by  some  supposed  to  be  Moriah,  as  an  appendage  of  mount  Zion ; 
but  it  may  just  as  well  be  simply  parallel  to  mountain,  the  mountain  of 
Zion  and  the  hill  thereof.     The  feminine  suffix  refers  not  to  "I'l  but  to  p*V. 

5.  As  hirds  flying  (over  or  around  their  nests),  so  toill  Jehovah  cover 
over  (or  protect)  Jerusalem,  cover  and  rescue,  2}(^ss  over  and  save.  Accord- 
ing to  Hitzig,  it  is  not  Jehovah  but  Jerusalem  that  is  here  compared  to 
fluttering  birds.  But,  as  Hendewerk  properly  objects,  n'lDj;  means  flying, 
and  is  inapplicable  to  young  birds  in  the  nest.  The  feminine  ri'lDj;  also 
indicates  a  reference  to  the  care  of  mothers  for  their  young.  Gesenius 
follows  Kimchi  in  explaining  7*-Vn  and  tOvpn  as  unusual  forms  of  the  in- 
finitive ;  but  Ewald  and  Hitzig  regard  this  as  an  instance  of  the  idiomatic 
combination  of  infinitive  and  finite  fonns.  np3  is  the  verb  used  to  denote 
the  passing  over  of  the  houses  in  Egypt  by  the  destroying  angel  (hence 
np5,  passover),  to  which  there  may  be  an  allusion  here.  There  is  at  least 
no  ground  for  making  the  verb,  in  either  case,  mean  to  cover  (Vitringa)  or 
to  leap  forward  (Lowth).  To  pass  over,  in  the  sense  of  sparing,  is  appro- 
priate in  both. 

6.  Since  you  need  no  protection  but  Jehovah's,  therefore,  return  unto 
him  from  %vhom  (or  with  respect  to  ivhom)  the  children  of  Israel  have  deeply 
revolted  (literally,  have  deepened  revolt).  The  last  words  may  also  be  read, 
from  ivhom  they  (/.  e.  men  indefinitely)  have  deeply  revolted,  0  ye  children 
of  Israel.  The  substitution  of  the  second  person  for  the  third,  in  the 
ancient  versions,  and  by  Barnes  {ye  have  revolted),  is  wholly  arbitrary. 
Some  explain  '^'^'^/.  to  mean  according  as  or  in  proportion  as,  which  seems 
to  be  a  forced  construction.  The  syntax  may  be  solved,  either  by  suppos- 
ing to  him  to  be  understood  and  giving  T'^',^  the  sense  of  with  respect  to 
whom,  or  by  assuming  that,  as  both  these  ideas  could  be  expressed  b}^  this 
one  phrase,  it  was  put  but  once  in  order  to  avoid  the  tautology.  Deep 
may  be  here  used  to  convey  the  specific  idea  of  debasement,  or  the  more 
general  one  of  distance,  or  still  more  generally,  as  a  mere  intensive,  like 
our  common  phrases  deep)ly  grieved  or  deeply  injured.  The  analogy  of 
chap.  xxix.  15,  however,  would  suggest  the  idea  of  deep  contrivance  or 
design,  which  is  equally  appropriate. 

7.  This  acknowledgment  you  will  be  constrained  to  make  sooner  or 
later.  For  in  that  day  (of  mii'aculous  dehverance)  they  shall  reject  (cast 
away  with  contempt),  a  man  {i.e.  each)  his  idols  of  silver  and  his  idols  of 
gold,  which  your  sinful  hands  have  made  for  you,  or,  which  your  own  hands 
have  made  for  you  as  sin,  i.e.  as  an  occasion  and  a  means  of  sin.  In  like 
manner  the  golden  calves  are  called  the  sin  of  Israel  (Deut.  ix.  21 ;  Amos 
viii.  14).  The  construction  which  makes  sin  a  qualifying  epithet  oi  hands, 
is  preferred  by  Hendewerk  and  some  older  writers,  but  is  not  so  natural 
as  that  which  makes  the  former  denote  the  object  or  efi'ect  of  the  action. 
For  the  true  construction  of  his  silver  and  his  gold,  see  the  note  on  chap, 
ii.  20.  For  the  same  enallage  of  person,  in  a  similar  connection,  see  chap. 
i.  29.     Trust  in  idols  and  reliance  upon  human  helpers  are  here,  and  often 


492  ISAIAH  XXXl.  [Ver.  8,  9. 

elsewhere,  put  together,  as  identical  in  principle,  and  closely  connected  in 
the  experience  of  ancient  Israel.     (See  the  notes  on  chap.  ii.  8,  22.) 

8.  This  future  abandonment  of  all  false  confidences  is  described  as 
springing  from  the  demonstration  of  Jehovah's  willingness  and  power  to 
save.  And  Assyria  shall  fall  hy  no  mans  sioord,  and  no  moitaVs  sword 
shall  devour  him,  and  he  shall  flee  from  before  the  sword,  and  his  j/ounrj  men 
(or  chosen  warriors)  shall  hecome  tributary  (literally,  tribute).  C'''b<'X7  and 
DIN'X?  are  commonly  explained  as  emphatic  compounds,  like  YV'^^  in 
chap.  X.  15,  implying  not  mere  negation  but  contrariety,  something  in- 
linitely  more  than  man.  In  such  a  comparison,  the  antithesis  of  mighty 
man  and  mean  man  seems  so  entirely  out  of  place,  that  it  is  best  to  explain 
ti'^N  and  Q'??)  according  to  the  ordinary  principle  of  parallelism,  as  equi- 
valents. In  either  case,  the  temis  are  universal  and  exclusive.  For  1?,  a 
few  manuscripts  and  one  of  the  earliest  editions  read  '^,  not  from  the  sword, 
i.  e.  he  shall  flee  when  no  man  pursueth.  (Prov.  xxviii.  1).  But  the 
pleonastic  dative  after  verbs  of  motion  is  a  common  Hebrew  idiom. 
Vitringa  and  others  derive  DD  from  DDD  to  melt,  and  explain  the  whole 
phrase  to  mean,  shall  be  melted,  i.e.  either  dispersed  or  overcome  with  fear. 
But  in  every  other  case  the  expression  means  to  become  tributary,  with  a 
special  reference  to  the  rendering  of  service  to  a  superior.  The  objection 
that  the  prophecj^  as  thus  explained,  was  not  fulfilled,  proceeds  upon  the 
false  assumption  that  it  refers  exclusively  to  the  overthrow  of  Sennacherib's 
host,  whereas  it  describes  the  decline  and  fall  of  the  Assyrian  power  after 
that  catastrophe. 

9.  And  his  rock  {i.  e.  his  strength)  from  fear  shall  pass  away,  and  his 
chiefs  shall  be  afraid  of  a  standard  (or  signal,  as  denoting  the  presence  of 
the  enemy),  saith  Jehovah,  to  tvhom  there  is  afire  in  Zion  and  a  furnace  in 
Jerusalem.  Besides  the  version  above  given  of  the  first  clause,  which  is 
that  of  Jerome  (fortitudo  transibit),  there  are  two  constructions,  also  ancient, 
between  which  modern  writers  are  divided.  Kimchi  explains  the  w-ords  to 
mean,  that  in  his  flight  he  should  pass  by  the  strongholds  on  his  own 
frontier,  whei*e  he  might  have  taken  refuge.  Grotius  quotes  in  illustration 
the  Latin  -^xoveYh,  fugit  idtra  casam.  Hendewerk  modifies  this  explanation 
by  supposing  caverns  in  the  hills  to  be  referred  to,  as  customary  places  of 
concealment.  The  other  construction  is  proposed  by  Aben  Ezra  :  he  shall 
pass  (not  by  but)  to  his  stronghold,  i.  e.  as  Calvin  understands  it,  Nineveh. 
Neither  of  these  explanations  seems  so  obvious  and  simple  as  the  one  just 
given.  Lowth  arbitrarily  translates  "ID?.P  at  his  flight.  Zwingle  applied  this 
clause  to  the  cowardly  desertion  of  the  standards.  The  last  clause,  accord- 
ing to  Piscator,  means,  w/iose  hearth  is  in  Jerusalem,  or  as  Gill  expresses 
it,  who  keeps  house  there,  and  therefore  will  defend  it.  Bat  this  use  of  fire 
and/wrnac'c  is  not  only  foreign  from  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures,  but  from 
the  habits  of  the  orientals,  who  have  no  such  association  of  ideas  between 
hearth  and  home.  The  true  explanation  of  the  clause  seems  to  be  that 
which  supposes  an  allusion  both  to  the  sacred  fire  on  the  altar,  and  to  the 
consuming  fire  of  God's  presence,  whose  altar  flames  in  Zion  and  whose 
wrath  shall  thence  flame  to  destroy  his  enemies.  Compare  the  explanation 
of  the  mystical  name  Ariel  in  the  note  on  chap.  xxix.  1. 


END  or  VOL.  I. 


^ 


r 


i  ^ 


> 


9916YB 

86-18-84  32160     MS 


